Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Do you really, honestly believe that the only reason Mozilla wrote terms of use that way but cURL doesn't is that Mozilla has more or better lawyers? Do you actually find it hard to believe that the legal terms attached to cURL are entirely sufficient an that Mozilla is using different terms because Mozilla is planning to take meaningfully different actions with respect to user data?

Mozilla has "larger organizational exposure" precisely because they're tracking users and packaging up that data for sale.






> Do you really, honestly believe that the only reason Mozilla wrote terms of use that way but cURL doesn't is that Mozilla has more or better lawyers?

Yes. Well, that, and Firefox talks to backend services (updates, safe browsing, etc) to do its job for the user, whereas cURL doesn't.

> Do you actually find it hard to believe that the legal terms attached to cURL are entirely sufficient an that Mozilla is using different terms because Mozilla is planning to take meaningfully different actions with respect to user data?

I've known a lot of Mozilla folks for a long time, so, yes.


> backend services

Except when you actually read the ToU the controversial, unnecessary license doesn't even talk about Mozilla's services at all.

"It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox."




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: