Remember, "Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language."*
You see that here. Mozilla chose to use legalese and not plain language, despite there being a movement afoot to try to push (and in some cases legally require) for plain language in legal documents. This one isn't so bad, since they mostly avoid passive voice and don't needlessly capitalize much. Maybe the low frequency jargon is necessary but look at those center embeddings...
- you upload or input information through Firefox with your use of Firefox
- When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license with your use of Firefox
- When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information with your use of Firefox.
- When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content with your use of Firefox.
- When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Break it into multiple sentences.
First sentence establishes you input data into
firefox when you use firefox (obviously, but maybe not to everyone!). Second clause establishes that when you input that data you give firefox a license to that data which you otherwise own (this could be more clear in a separate sentence). Third clause establishes that the license is to use the information (not to sell it). Fourth clause establishes that they will use it to help you navigate, experience and interact with online content. Fifth clause (as you indicate) establishes that it is your use of firefox that indicates your intention and how they should use your input to help you. As five separate sentences they could make it seem much more reasonable. The embeddings are instead ineffective because they aren't referring to a common category but instead modify an aspect of the former clause.
I will maintain it is an issue of clarity. Your argument is that Mozilla isn't offering online services but this isn't true and clarifying what actions upload information and exactly how that information would be used would mollify this. The list would probably be quite extensive. Moreover, the clause doesn't necessarily give them a license to all information input through firefox and that clarification should be demanded of them.
The ToU is clearly referring to the browser, not the other products of the Firefox brand family. The literal first two paragraphs:
> Firefox is free and open source web browser software, built by a community of thousands from all over the world.
> Please read these Terms of Use (“Terms”) carefully because they explain important information about using your copy of the Firefox software. These Terms are a binding agreement between Mozilla Corporation (“Mozilla”) and You. For details about Firefox privacy practices, please read the Firefox Privacy Notice.
You see that here. Mozilla chose to use legalese and not plain language, despite there being a movement afoot to try to push (and in some cases legally require) for plain language in legal documents. This one isn't so bad, since they mostly avoid passive voice and don't needlessly capitalize much. Maybe the low frequency jargon is necessary but look at those center embeddings...
Break it into multiple sentences.First sentence establishes you input data into firefox when you use firefox (obviously, but maybe not to everyone!). Second clause establishes that when you input that data you give firefox a license to that data which you otherwise own (this could be more clear in a separate sentence). Third clause establishes that the license is to use the information (not to sell it). Fourth clause establishes that they will use it to help you navigate, experience and interact with online content. Fifth clause (as you indicate) establishes that it is your use of firefox that indicates your intention and how they should use your input to help you. As five separate sentences they could make it seem much more reasonable. The embeddings are instead ineffective because they aren't referring to a common category but instead modify an aspect of the former clause.
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002772...