So what I think -but again, not a lawyer- is that the previous version also didn’t grant Mozilla ownership of your data. For example, maybe there was already a legal limit to what rights the ToS can transfer to Mozilla, and the new version just re-iterates the existing law?

Well, it will always be there as long as Firefox is also there.

The post sounds like it the initial terms weren’t thought to be broader than the current ones, but that that apparently wasn’t clear when they were read by regular people. As a non-lawyer, it seems entirely possible to me that the legal ramifications of both versions are the same, as often things that will read one way to me, turn out to actually mean more specific things in a legal context.

Could some savvy code-reader go through it to see if something about the data collection has changed?

Yeah, I think it’s telling that it’s been a while now and nobody has pointed to any suspicious code.

Yep, that’s the one!

Well, let me know when you’re using either for your regular browsing. If that’s in my lifetime, I’ll happily admit they were a bad example (and be a lot more comforted about the state of the web).

I don’t think there’s anyone on planet earth who can build a browser at a budget of, say, 2 million USD annually. See also: Ladybird and Servo not being anywhere near ready.

Also integration with Firefox (or like this) can be pretty neat. Though I hear Mullvad has its own Firefox fork now, probably with the same idea.

Sorry, you’re saying that if 85 percent of funding disappears (hundreds of millions), and “weird spending” (including the venture fund, which usually make money) to the tune of 0.3 million (let’s make that 2 million, assuming they have several such projects) is cut, then that would be able to sustain Firefox? Because that math doesn’t add up for me.

I’m aware of that sentiment, and I agree that it’s misguided and that there’s no way that that would cover costs.

Feel free to share how much money they spend on random advocacy. I believe the Google deal nets a couple of hundred million - it sounds like you’re saying that if Mozilla scraps the AI and advocacy, that should recoup that money? Because otherwise losing the money is still going to require finding other sources of income to fund Firefox.

Yes, but we’re yelling years and years into the future, if ever, so let’s keep our eyes on the ball in the meantime.

If Mozilla loses the Google revenue, it’ll have to do more other stuff if it’s to have any hope of being able to subsidise Firefox development though.

I can’t speak for the UK, and I’m not even sure about the situation in the Netherlands, but two things I’ve observed here:

1. More and more businesses are cashless, and those who aren’t at least handle less cash.
2. There are machines that I kinda want to call reverse ATMs, which allow you to deposit money.

So I suppose for the remaining uses, they’ll “just” have to travel longer distances?

Ladybird is pretty infeasible in terms of getting to a point where you can realistically use it for normal web browsing, though.

It’s a great project, but it’s not proof of the viability of writing an engine for the modern web.

Then there’s Mozilla, which is an actual nonprofit and builds its own engine for Firefox, ie does not solidify Google’s grip on the internet (eg can feasibly keep supporting tracker blockers like uBlock Origin).

(Which is not to say that I’m not sympathetic to Vivaldi as well.)

The article is a somewhat kludgy translation of this one, I believe, which doesn’t use the word “majority”. But yes, it’s a plurality, the largest of the three groups (vs 39% remain, and the rest unsure).

Presumably they want to make them enthusiastic about rail travel, so having to suffer through DB would be counterproductive.

I believe I did read somewhere he also had a visit planned a couple of years ago, but that that was cancelled because of the pandemic.

Dutch PM / prime candidate NATO chief.