
Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store - AndrewDucker
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox/issues/82
======
soapdog
Lots of heat in this thread...

So, Addons are mostly reviewed by volunteers. Sometimes people make mistakes.
The best course of action is to try to reach out for the AMO team on IRC or
their mailing list.

\- Addons forum is at [https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-
ons](https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-ons)

\- All contact info for AMO dev stuff is at:
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons#Con...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons#Contact_us)

\- Developer Hub for addons is at: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/developers/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/)

There is no need for FUD or conspiracy theories. We can just talk to people
and find out what happened and maybe revert it if possible.

~~~
motdiem
My experience with firefox add-on reviewers has been hit or miss - One of the
most frustrating things is that reviews often happen long after your add-on
has been published. I'd rather have a longer waiting time, but once an add-on
is published then it means it's been approved. From the developer point of
view it means that it's very hard to communicate on releases, because you
never know when your addon is going to be reviewed. From the end user, it
means that if someone maliciouly changes one of your addons, you may already
have updated to that version before the review. I also feel that the
guidelines around reviews aren't well explained, and the reviewers comments
are often terse, bordering on the incomprehensible : at least with Apple, you
get pointed to which part of the rules they think you didn't respect - with
firefox, we often get broad comments that require a bit of back and forth to
figure out what it is they're actually thinking is wrong.

~~~
kbrosnan
This was the old model and it put a lot of pressure on the volunteer add-on
reviewers and their were times where the delays stretched out to several
months.

~~~
iagooar
It's not like Mozilla has no funds. Why not hire a couple of people for the
reviews?

~~~
nowarninglabel
Or at least hire review coordinators who can manage the program effectively.
Our volunteers review 15,000+ loans a month. Happy to share insights with
Mozilla on how to run an effective volunteer community and keep the pipeline
flowing.

------
avian
> Release and Beta versions of Firefox do not allow unsigned extensions to be
> installed

I'm really disappointed at Mozilla regarding this. I recently wanted to do
some Firefox customization for my own private use (not even an extension, I
just wanted to have some visual indication of which Firefox windows belong to
which profile). I was surprised to find out that even just a header .png in a
theme can't be loaded locally but must be on-line and vetted by Mozilla. Utter
craziness.

~~~
zaarn
IIRC you can install unsigned extensions in the dev and nightly as well as
unbranded versions of firefox (usually the last option means compiling it
yourself).

Mozilla is, to some extend understandably, concerned with the image of Firefox
and patrolling what Addons are available in the store is part of that. Apple
does the very same thing.

~~~
funklebunkle
> Apple does the very same thing.

I understand that Apple does everything in its power to make the life of
developers miserable (such as requiring a Mac to be used for iOS development),
but Mozilla were supposed to be the good guys on the web.

~~~
zaarn
I think you misunderstood there.

Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs
miserable, it's to have users trust the app store.

Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. If a user finds an addon in _Mozilla 's_
addon store, then Mozilla wants the user to fully trust that this addon will
not violate their privacy in unexpected ways or install malware on their
computer or otherwise interfere with them.

Similarly, Apple spends a lot of money on making sure the PR image of the app
store is clean. People should be able to fully trust Apple's app store, in
Apple's opinion.

That doesn't mean there won't be addons you don't like, it just means that
malicious behavior is not allowed. If the user doesn't like it they can remove
it without consequence.

~~~
1024core
> Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same.

Nothing prevents me from compiling my own binaries and running them on my Mac.

But the issue here (AFAICT) is that Mozilla won't even let you sideload your
own stuff on your browser. This is horribly broken.

~~~
dralley
>But the issue here (AFAICT) is that Mozilla won't even let you sideload your
own stuff on your browser.

There's no way to allow that that doesn't also allow crapware / malware
installers from injecting stuff into Firefox.

------
jape
While this is extremely dubious behavior from Mozilla, and reminds me why I
stopped donating to them (the moment Firefox started requiring _their_
signature in order to load addons), Mozilla still has the "automated signing
API" in place. Supposedly, this API allows to get an XPI signed as long as it
passes a series of automated checks. So it's worth a try.

This was the excuse they used anyway when trying to justify their signature
requirements were "not a walled garden". I didn't believe it of course.

You can also just mark the addon as "not listed in AMO" when submitting it to
addons.mozilla.org and it will not be listed on the store, but it will be
signed. More details in [https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/Distribut...](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/Distribution)

~~~
Vinnl
I've recently been experimenting with creating an extension, and the automated
signing was literally one of the first things I did when I followed the Hello
World tutorial. It's very easy to obtain an .xpi that you can distribute to
your users yourself.

~~~
funklebunkle
How do you do this without leaking your code to mozilla?

~~~
idle_zealot
Out of curiosity, under what circumstances would you consider distributing an
extension bundle to be leaking its code? Unless I'm misunderstanding, isn't
this the same file you'll be distributing to your users? At first bluff it
seems similar to worrying about leaking your website's frontend (I've got news
for you...).

~~~
tomp
It could be a private extension developed by a company internally, and only
distributed to internal users.

~~~
earenndil
If it's for an entire company, then it's easy enough to compile your own copy
of firefox that accepts extensions signed with the company signature rather
than mozilla.

~~~
funklebunkle
It's really not. Small businesses exist.

~~~
earenndil
If you have the resources to develop an internal company addon, you have the
resources to build a firefox that accepts a different signature.

~~~
jamietanna
Respectfully disagree - having to rebuild each time patches come out, on
multiple OSes and versions, which have a patch to allow unsigned extensions is
a massively more time expensive than developing a browser extension, and
requires extra knowledge on the behalf of the persons responsible

~~~
Vinnl
Luckily it's not necessary: you can still enable a flag in ESR releases that
allow installation of unsigned add-ons, so that solves it for company-internal
tools.

------
AndrewDucker
The worst bit here is that they aren't explaining exactly which part of the
ToS is being violated, and what needs to be done to fix it...

~~~
fwn
A large part of corporate platform power is due to the ambiguity in decision
making arising from the absence of clear and transparent processes or
accountability regarding how the rules are applied.

That's just a giant gateway for despotism.

~~~
dao-
It's unlikely that there's a corporate decision behind this. I wouldn't even
call this a corporate platform. Let me copy-paste a comment from further below
that deserves more attention:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18568302](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18568302)

> Here is what the creator actually said

> >One of the community reviewers removed it from the store claiming it
> violated the ToS, which is BS. The ToS never mentions the word paywall once.
> Please support me in appealing! [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-
> ons#Getting_in_touch](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons#Getting_in_touch)

> Which sounds more like a zealous community member than Mozilla taking a
> position.

~~~
fwn
I didn't want to imply a corporate decision behind this specific case.

Corporate power arises through the capability alone, not necessarily its
frequent execution.

I think that Mozilla is actually a great company to demonstrate how
responsible platforms could operate. Past examples might be Pockets non cloud
based recommendation engine or their encrypted user account setup.

------
superkuh
This would not be an issue at all if Firefox had not jumped the shark in
version 37 by implementing anti-user features like requiring Mozilla approval
(signed) to run add-ons.

~~~
tux1968
The idea is to protect users, not hurt them in any way. Anyone can sign and
run their own add-ons, or offer those add-ons for others to use. The only
thing being restricted now is who can distribute their addons via
addons.mozilla.org, which seems more than fair.

~~~
Endy
The idea might be good. The execution is harmful to users, and they refuse to
roll it back. That's all that matters. Mozilla has shown this pattern
consistently - they have an idea they think will be good for people, and when
it ends up being hurtful and damaging not only the core product but the
userbase - driving more people to alternate browsers - they steadfastly refuse
to see what's going on around them.

Frankly, those of us who went to Pale Moon may as well have been the last rats
off a sinking ship.

~~~
__david__
> The idea might be good. The execution is harmful to users, and they refuse
> to roll it back.

Howso? I've been using FF forever and I didn't notice this change…

~~~
Endy
I'm glad that all of the addons you use are the ones they've approved of and
which haven't been made incompatible by any of the major breaking changes
they've introduced in the last few years.

~~~
rrix2
Those seem like two entirely unrelated issues

~~~
rhizome
I don't know the whole story, but I'm inferring that the signing change
affected the ability for people to sideload plugins.

~~~
rrix2
That had nothing to do with the move to WebExtensions and the associated
compatibility issues though...

~~~
Endy
I feel that Mozilla's misdirection is one very large issue encompassing many
problems.

------
laktak
I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish
there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.

~~~
dmortin
If you mean automatic micropayments when reading articles then you'll still be
tracked, because the payment provider has to track what you read to make the
payments and even has to be able to provide a log of it in case there is a
payment dispute, so they will store what urls you visit and when.

Without a proper log payment disputes can't be resolved legally.

~~~
buboard
if there was something like anonymous payments (cryptocoin-based maybe?) then
it would be possible without any tracking. In the few cases where you ask your
penny cash back because something happened, most companies would just give it
back without questions asked assuming they dont get tons of cashback requests
from your IP.

~~~
dmortin
That's why they need a log, because there will be cashback requests which
people could abuse. And this will not necessarily be only pennies. A penny for
a single page, for example, but if you visit many pages of the same site then
the amount will be much higher and a user could claim then he has never
visited that site and wants his money back.

~~~
lunchables
Seems like there has to be some method to solve this? Maybe the transaction is
part of the page load? You don't get the page until you pay via anonymous
cryptocurrency. No need for any post-transaction verification and
reconciliation? The problem there will be if the page fails to load, how can I
safely get a second attempt without creating some kind of "double-spending"
problem.

~~~
londons_explore
There is.

You can do tracking in such a way only the person browsing has a log. In the
case of a dispute, the log file can be revealed to the website so they can
determine how to resolve the dispute.

In the undisputed case, the website wouldn't see the log.

------
boomboomsubban
Here is what the creator actually said

>One of the community reviewers removed it from the store claiming it violated
the ToS, which is BS. The ToS never mentions the word paywall once. Please
support me in appealing! [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-
ons#Getting_in_touch](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons#Getting_in_touch)

Which sounds more like a zealous community member than Mozilla taking a
position.

~~~
soapdog
yes!!! people don't realize that volunteers review the addons and that
sometimes they make mistakes. They start acting as if Mozilla sent an internal
memo to kill something when it is usually not the case.

~~~
dingaling
> that volunteers review the addons

I don't think that makes it better. In fact, it's worse.

Why is Mozilla Corporation, a company with gross revenue of $562 million,
delegating an important security role to unpaid and apparently unaccountable
volunteers?

~~~
soapdog
Thats not how it works. To become an addon reviewer there is a process and it
is not like all the reviewers are the same. Again please, don't treat
volunteers who are donating their time and effort as unaccountable or as if
they don't know security, they are accountable and there is also a staff team
working on there. There are a ton of volunteers who are very good with
security. Whatever happened between this addon author and the review this is
kinda private to them.

I really dislike when people assume that because you're a volunteer that
you're unaccountable or less capable technically or security wise than an
employee. That is simply not true.

There are volunteers in all places at Mozilla and personally, I think this is
great. Also treating Mozilla as a company is not really the ideal mindset.
Mozilla is at best a NGO, a foundation, who owns a company for legal reasons,
who is also a community, who builds a ton of stuff. It is quite a complex
entity to be summarized as "a company should handle this different".

~~~
shkkmo
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. First you agree with the
OP that the reviews being done by volunteers who can makes mistakes somehow
makes Mozilla less culpable, then you jump in to say that these volunteers are
just as accountable, technically capable and security wise as an employee
would be.

You only seem interested in letting Mozilla off the hook rather than
acknowledging the systemic issues that gave rise to this situation.

> Also treating Mozilla as a company is not really the ideal mindset. Mozilla
> is at best a NGO, a foundation, who owns a company for legal reasons, who is
> also a community, who builds a ton of stuff.

Except the Mozilla Corporation is the entity that develops Firefox and is a
company. That company may be wholey owned by a non-profit, but it is still a
company.

------
Reason077
This is a cool add-on, but it does have the side-effect of making cookie-
consent and GDPR popups/boxes appear for every page loaded.

Can anyone recommend an add-on for automatically hiding/dismissing such
popups?

~~~
subsection1h
The following two solutions hide cookie messages.

Fanboy's Anti-Cookie Filters (for uBlock Origin, etc.):

[https://www.fanboy.co.nz/](https://www.fanboy.co.nz/)

I don't care about cookies (extension):

[https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/](https://www.i-dont-care-about-
cookies.eu/)

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-
care-a...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-
cookies/)

Here's an interesting discussion about the second solution:

[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/909](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/909)

------
bitewhite
If anyone is interested in installing this extension, I uploaded the .xpi file
and instructions to install it in an issue on the git repo a few days ago
[[https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
firefox/issues...](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
firefox/issues/82#issuecomment-441105276)]

Hopefully the maintainer puts the .xpi file somewhere it can be accessed.

edit: someone has replied in the bottom of the git issue thread with a direct
install link. use that instead

------
crankylinuxuser
After reading all these comments, perhaps its time to branch Firefox to
something else?

This situation feels like the old Mozilla vs Firefox issue that happened a
decade and a half ago. Perhaps the fact that the Mozilla Foundation is
treating their browser like an Apple device is the final impetus to move
elsewhere?

~~~
kodablah
Unfortunately, with the size and scope of a browser and the sheer numbers of
features constantly being added, this is a difficult task. What would be ideal
is a company (preferably with financial incentive to do so) maintaining an
embeddable, highly configurable form of FF (ala CEF[0]) and then the rest of
us can build UI around it.

[0] -
[https://bitbucket.org/chromiumembedded/cef](https://bitbucket.org/chromiumembedded/cef)

------
snek
you can sign and distribute xpi addons without putting them on the addon
marketplace

------
doe88
Meanwhile in useless podcast ads they try to paint Firefox as the parangon of
virtue for users privacy.

------
ykevinator
We need easy to use, non subscription micro payments. I was hopeful Bitcoin
would do this but sadly it was never adopted as a mainstream payment platform.

~~~
majewsky
Bitcoin does not scale to micropayments. Lightning could probably help, but
the next problem is that Bitcoin's value is way too volatile for broader
acceptance (which, I realize, is to a certain extent a chicken-and-egg
problem).

------
championshutler
Hi All, You can reach out to addon reviewers in #addon-reviewers in Mozilla
IRC server or shoot an email at amo-admins AT mozilla DOT org.

------
dec0dedab0de
What I want is something that blackholes links to paywalled sites from search
results, hackernews, and social media.

------
nyghtly
Waiting for the day when news sites start blocking your IP when you circumvent
the paywall--to bad there isn't an add-on for that right?

------
KronenR
Thank you Mozilla I didn't knew about this very helpful extension.

------
mariuolo
Is it a matter of liability on part of Mozilla's?

Could they be have been sued?

------
russdpale
Boy, ungoogled chrome and brave are looking mighty appeasing at the moment. Im
not sure how long I can continue to support mozilla.. Why do they keep doing
these things? They can't just be satisfied with what they were?

Profit over all, always and forever.

~~~
gkoberger
In your mind, how is this decision one that was made to increase profit?

------
adam12
Now I want it.

------
kibwen
HN mods: title is incorrect and misleading, should at least read "Bypass
Paywalls add-on removed from Firefox add-ons store". The use of "Mozilla" in
the title has caused a lot of confusion in this thread from people who haven't
clicked through the link.

~~~
Karunamon
Distinction without a difference, IMO. Mozilla has chosen to require this
level of curation on Firefox against all complaints in the name of "safety",
so they can also take the heat when their process results in an outcome like
this. Their browser, their addon site, their decision, their fault.

~~~
kibwen
The idea that AMO shouldn't be curated is baffling. Browser extensions are the
biggest malware vector since email attachments named `importantstuff.txt.exe`.
The title saying that Mozilla "pulled" this extension is not merely incorrect,
it is blatant misinformation.

~~~
shkkmo
>The idea that AMO shouldn't be curated is baffling. Browser extensions are
the biggest malware vector since email attachments named
`importantstuff.txt.exe`.

This is a strawman, the GP did not say AMO shouldn't be curated. [Edit: added
missing "n't"]

> The title saying that Mozilla "pulled" this extension is not merely
> incorrect, it is blatant misinformation.

Mozilla selected, manages and empowers the reviewer who made this decisions.
Since organizations are not people, delegating authority like this is the only
way that organizations can ever do anything. Therefor to claim that Mozilla
did not do this is spurious at best.

Now, Mozilla can disown the decision by saying the reviewer did not follow the
appropriate process in making the decision. If that claim is shown to be true,
only then would the title possibly be incorrect or misleading. Until then,
Mozilla is as culpable for the authorized actions of its agents.

------
dmortin
The hard truth is someone has to pay for content in the end. It's either ads
or some kind of paywall or micropayment.

It's okay to say no to ads, but then we shouldn't circumvent paywalls. Free
content is free only as long as someone somehow still pays for it.

~~~
gpvos
Publishers should take some basic control of the ads on their site, just like
it used to be with newspapers and broadcast. Serve them from their own domain,
restrict their format (no moving parts or sound, no Javascript at all), vet
them for basic decency before publishing. My uBlock Origin setup wouldn't
block that.

~~~
eksemplar
Good idea, but they are not tech companies, so they likely lack the ability to
do so.

I guess they could upscale in tech, but how would they pay for it when they
can barely earn enough money to fulfill their primary function?

I don’t think publishers have a problem. I think users do. I hate online news
as much as everyone, but I still want deep, intelligent and critical
journalism, so I subscribed to a paper which sells it.

It’s one of the most successful news papers of my country, financially, and up
until April this year they didn’t have a website. They do now, but it’s
basically just a digital version (also available in audio from apps) that you
can still only access if you subscribe.

I couldn’t be happier, and they earn money. So maybe the whole free content
thing isn’t really a good way to go for either the user or the publisher?

~~~
einr
_Good idea, but they are not tech companies, so they likely lack the ability
to do so._

They'd best gain the ability, then, or fade into irrelevance and die.

And honestly, we're talking about serving a few images from their own
webserver. It's not rocket science.

~~~
vetinari
Technically, serving few images is not a problem.

The question arises, what images to serve. Someone has to sell advertisement,
find clients, persuade them to advertise with the given site, etc. That's
something they are getting with ad networks for free.

~~~
einr
You could easily outsource ad sales while still serving the images
unobtrusively from your own server.

~~~
imhoguy
Who owns a server today? Even publishing platforms are outsourced or behind
nicely packaged SaaS today, not to mention infrastructure services. There is
no more "FTP your site to XYZ".

------
znhy
Mozilla shooting themselves in the foot again? Really, these people can't take
a break.

What's worse is that both Google and Mozilla are equally vile, so what browser
am I supposed to use? In the end I guess I'll go with Brave.

~~~
soapdog
You're kind overreacting here. Addons are reviewed by volunteers. Someone
thought this violates the policies and acted. There are many ways to verify
what is happening, including talking to the AMO team on IRC or other
communication channel. It is not like you can't ask for clarification, it
might all just be a honest mistake.

~~~
znhy
Addon security is vital to the security of the browser. The fact that addons
are reviewed by volunteers, instead of employees, is even more ludicrous.

------
beart
I've never understood how paywall bypass addons can be considered ethical.
Even if you hate paywalls, it's the publisher's decision to use them. If I
were to take a newspaper from a news stand without paying because there's an
article I want to read but I don't want to pay, is that much different?

I'm honestly asking what the justification is for people who use these addons.
Do you not consider it unethical or do you not care?

To clarify the tone of this post, I'm not trying to judge the value of
someone's character based on if they bypass paywalls, I'm really just
interested in other perspectives on this.

~~~
ballenf
Just to give one example where I consider it ethical: the WSJ doesn't paywall
articles if they originate from FB and it's simple to simulate this link.

These bypasses aren't "hacking" the sites in any normal sense. They are using
publisher-created methods of accessing articles that any person could do if
they had enough time and knowledge of the particular side channel.

In short, unless the bypass is truly hacking the site (using compromised
credentials, e.g.), the argument is altruistic more than moral: "giving as
much money as possible to good journalism."

~~~
tzs
Did you just essentially argue that it is ethical because it is easy?

------
millzlane
It's always about money. It's not about a free and open web.

~~~
Endy
Someone else has finally figured it out.

------
vesak
Bypassing paywalls is easily in top ten most evil things you can do as a
consumer in a modern information society. We _should_ pay for the things we
consume, with money. But only with money.

Then again, if the thing behind the paywall expects money _and_ tracks/mines
you, then fuck'em.

------
village-idiot
Mozilla’s rhetoric and their actions have been drifting apart for years now.

------
matt4077
It’s good for Mozilla to take a stance, and drop the pretense that you can
have the cake, eat it, and have all your other cookies left over.

Circumventing paywalls is not a crime, but it is also not victimless. The
crisis for journalism is already eating at the foundations of democracy on the
local level. To blithely ignore this is the triump of short-sighted egoism.
And the inability of publishers to prevent you from doing it is no more
justification as the old shopkeeper’s failing eyes are a license for you to
steal from the produce displayed outside.

~~~
Endy
It's bad for Mozilla to take a stance that's obviously against the preferences
of their users. They can't play both sides of the field - either you're for
the User, or you're for the Corps. I once sincerely believed that Firefox was
part of a statement that they would fight for the User. That disappeared
somewhere between 4.0 and 27.0. I believed there was still some hope in
Mozilla - all of it has been eroded over the years.

So now, they've taken their stance. They don't want free users. They want
corporate servants, the same as Microsoft, Apple, and Google.

------
alexeiz
Thanks, Mozilla. I never knew about this useful extension. But now I do and
I'm going to install and use it. Use it in Chrome, of course. I stopped caring
about Firefox a long time ago.

------
buboard
I 'm going to have to defend Mozilla here. There is this very perverse idea
here that everything should be free, but that's only because you are used to
using VC-funded services with an expiration (acquisition) date. This seems to
be endemic thinking in SV but the rest of the world has to make their own
paycheck.

Maybe mozilla should think of experimenting with some micropayment service
though. They are ideally positioned for that.

~~~
probably_wrong
I would argue that this position is contrary to Mozilla's stated values about
freedom on the web. If they truly support freedom, that should include my
freedom to decide which add-ons I want to run on my browser.

Sure, they can have an opinion about where should the web go, and in fact it
would probably be a very well-informed one. But they can't both claim to
support freedom for their users while, at the same time, imposing their ideas
on their users.

~~~
ghostly_s
Which "position"? No one has even shared the stated reasoning for removing
this extension yet. Just a bunch of people jumping at an opportunity to
disparage Evil Mozilla in here with no details on the real situation. This
whole thread should be deleted if you ask me.

------
gradschool
Isn't this exactly the kind of user-hostile behavior open source is supposed
to prevent? Apologies if this is a naive question, but how hard would it be to
delete the parts of the release version of the Firefox source code that
pertain to checking signatures for add-ons and recompile it?

~~~
kbumsik
> Isn't this exactly the kind of user-hostile behavior open source is supposed
> to prevent?

What part of behavior is user-hostile?

~~~
Karunamon
Preventing the user from installing whatever they choose, for starters.

~~~
kbumsik
> for starters.

It is not only for starter but for the whole platform ecosystem. It is not
even user-hostile. It is just to prevent "Nah forget Firefox add-on market,
just install this file" fragmentation. Firefox add-on platform is already much
smaller than Google chrome (of course). I wouldn't be happy if the market got
even smaller because of the fragmentation.

And Firefox already allows us to install whatever we want in dev/nightly
version, for hackers. So I don't see any problems here.

~~~
anoncake
What? There is no requirement to offer your add-on on AMO.

~~~
Karunamon
No, just a requirement that you submit your addon for signing, submit to a
separate agreement[1], and their policies[2] (which has separate sub-politics
about data usage), regardless of whether you offer it on AMO or not.

[1]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/AMO...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/AMO/Policy/Agreement)

[2]:[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/AMO...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-
ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews)

