Comment by chmod775
1 year ago
> there is no reason why Mozilla would need to know about this.
Precisely. That's why it's not covered by the license.
1 year ago
> there is no reason why Mozilla would need to know about this.
Precisely. That's why it's not covered by the license.
> That's why it's not covered by the license.
It says it is.
No. It doesn't say that.
If you want to claim otherwise, show where it says that and elaborate. This style of "argument" leads nowhere. You're stringing together vague statements and claims, leaving it to the imagination of the reader to tie them into the matter at hand. Maybe you want to do your own dissection of the sentence we are arguing about to make your reading of it clear.
I think you're interpreting "as you indicate with your use of Firefox." in some weird charitable way. Law doesn't work like that.
4 replies →
You have been nitpicking on minutiae while blatantly ignoring the broader context. What is your stance on Mozilla removing the "we don't sell your data" clause as indicated in other comments? You have been latching on wordings and dragging people in clarification contests, but have been carefully avoiding to respond to this not at all vague statement/fact.
Here, let me repeat some of the comments you ignored:
ndiddy 4 hours ago | unvote | parent | prev | next [–]
Given that Mozilla updated their site a couple days ago to remove any wording along the lines of "Firefox will never sell your data to advertisers" when a flag associated with the new Firefox terms of use is enabled (see https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b...), I'm not so sure that this is a CYA about standard web browser usage.
theturtletalks 4 hours ago | unvote | root | parent | next [–]
> {% if switch('firefox-tou') %}
The proof is in the code, great work.
2 replies →