My guess is the first phrase is lawyer-brain for "we send the words you typed in the search bar to the search engine for you."
(Yes, they need your express permission to do that, because copyright law is really fucking dumb and makes absolutely no sense if you're approaching it from engineer-brain.)
My browser sent a request that starts with “POST” in order to tell this website to create this comment but it includes the words that I wrote and therefore “own” as far as copyright is concerned. Mozilla requests a license to send such data to websites in similar contexts as, in this case, I “indicate” by clicking the “reply” button.
Other uses of that data are not licensed. For example, using that data in an unrelated request they send to themselves, not indicated by clicking reply, is not licensed.
Mozilla isn't sending that data. You're sending that data.
These terms are common on webapps because, well, they're webapps. You send your data to the webapp and they store it on their own servers.
Web apps, operated by individuals or organisations, are very different to local apps which are operated by you. Just because the Firefox app is running on your device doesn't mean that Mozilla is operating it.
By granting Mozilla the right to access and use your data, you're agreeing to give them data which they never had previously - instead of just sending the POST to xyz.com you're now sending it to Mozilla as well who can do whatever they like with it, sell it to ad networks, whatever.
> Does curl need a license to send HTTP requests for me?
No, but if they had one and it was phrased like this one, the license itself would be limited to these activities. If you want something to decry from Mozilla's terms, pay attention to this part:
> Every once in a while, Mozilla may decide to update these Terms. We will post the updated Terms online. We will take your continued use of Firefox as acceptance of such changes. We will post an effective date at the top of this page to make it clear when we made our most recent update.
Note that they even tell you that you can check for yourself to see if/when they tell you that you've agreed to give them a new license. That is much closer to allowing them to do anything they want than what the current license allows.
Regardless of any of that, the thing to have in mind is that this is an explicit message from Mozilla that you are agreeing to these terms by using firefox and continuing to agree to the terms by using firefox. Not to say this is ideal; just that it's as good a time as any to move on from Mozilla and firefox, especially if one is unhappy with these terms. I say this as someone who has left behind Mozilla and firefox after using it for over a decade. I will continue to be on the look out for and supportive of alternatives. So far librewolf (https://librewolf.net/) has been an easy pick-up as it's primarily just firefox with telemetry turned off.
And the means of realization are up to Mozilla. In other words they can do whatever they want. If my intent is to type something into the searchbar and get redirected to the search engine website, there is no reason why Mozilla would need to know about this.
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.
No, I'm not. I'm interpreting it precisely as written using the rules of the English language. Lawyers get paid good money to word them very precisely.
I appreciate your candor and good-faith, benefit-of-the-doubt reading of this clause.
However,
> Lawyers get paid good money to word them very precisely.
This is true, but not in the way you are presenting. The precision is often to provide unilateral freedom under the guise of protection. They will "lawyer" you.
"As indicated by you" is a grossly broad phrase. An indication is not an express, enthusiastic consent.
(FWIW browsers have a lot of lessons to learn from sexual misconduct training, but I digress).
Importantly, you are making an implicit assumption that actually is not protected by the statement. And that is when the intention was shared.
If you accept the terms of a Mozilla service elsewhere that indicate you are amenable to, for instance, being served ads in exchange for using the browser a certain way --it can now be argued that the data can be exfiltrated.
So, there are two points of failure with your assessment.
1. "Indicated by you" is subjective and Mozilla can solidly argue implicit consent or action
2. The indication need not be contained to the same operation which which the information in question is being sent.
> This is true, but not in the way you are presenting. The precision is often to provide unilateral freedom under the guise of protection. They will "lawyer" you. "As indicated by you" is a grossly broad phrase. An indication is not an express, enthusiastic consent. (FWIW browsers have a lot of lessons to learn from sexual misconduct training, but I digress).
I'd like to second this. I've attempted to have lawyers write contracts that adequately protect and limit both sides of an agreement. First drafts always look to completely balance the scales in favor of the person paying them.
Writing a well-balanced contract requires a lot of work that Mozilla should be doing, but charitably doesn't know they need to do or pessimistically is intentionally not doing. It's hard to read this situation as not either incompetence or a change in Mozilla's priorities.
I had to vouch for your comment, which given that yours is the first and only comment responding with something substantive in this entire comment tree is rather... interesting. Thank you for actually engaging in the discussion about the matter at hand using well laid out arguments.
> "As indicated by you" is a grossly broad phrase. An indication is not an express, enthusiastic consent.
I agree that by itself "indicate" could be interpreted very broadly, however in context it is decidedly less so: "to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox". So in order to be licensed use, it has to serve to help the user "navigate, experience, and interact" in the way the user indicated.
> If you accept the terms of a Mozilla service elsewhere that indicate you are amenable to, for instance, being served ads in exchange for using the browser a certain way --it can now be argued that the data can be exfiltrated.
You're right. It absolutely could be argued. As long as they obtain consent/a communication of intent somewhere - for instance by you leaving a "yes, serve me ads" checkbox ticked somewhere - they arguably could now have license to use your data for that.
However the point is that something on top of your agreement to the TOS is necessary to make that happen. Just agreeing to the TOS and browsing the web normally doesn't give Mozilla license to do much at all.
If I could make a change to the sentence, I would modify it to include "license [..] to the extent necessary to [..]":
> When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to the extent necessary to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
I don't think that change is strictly... necessary, but it makes it very clear that Mozilla doesn't have license to do all sorts of other unrelated things with your data beyond what is absolutely necessary to realize the user's intent.
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') %}
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% else %}
<p>Firefox is independent and a part of the not-for-profit Mozilla, which fights for your online rights, keeps corporate powers in check and makes the internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. We believe the internet is for people, not profit. Unlike other companies, we don’t sell access to your data. You’re in control over who sees your search and browsing history. All that and exceptional performance too.</p>
{% endif %}
> 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?
Why do you care about my stance?
I'm just here trying to correct a misreading of a specific instance of "lawyerspeak" and am not interested in joining some ideological battle where you believe me on the opposing side. It's not my kind of past time. I'm more interested in making sure I fully understand a matter, often by bouncing my interpretations off other people. I could not care less about joining some online brawl and making my side seem right by any means necessary.
What you're bringing up has no bearing on this conversation - it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence people were confused about at all.
That's why I was ignoring these kinds of replies. I just don't care for it.
> I'm more interested in making sure I fully understand a matter, often by bouncing my interpretations off other people.
Are you a lawyer?
You've been doing more than "bouncing my interpretations of other people". You've been confidently telling people that your interpretation is correct and that concerns about this granting Firefox legal cover to do much more with user data are baseless.
> navigate, experience, and interact
You claims these words are restrictive, but they really aren't.
Did you write an reddit post about air condidtioners? Does that indicate an interest in buying an air conditioner? Can mozilla now sell/share that data with advertisers so you can experience ads related to air-conditioners?
Those three words provide a huge amount of wiggle room.
If you truly want to "fully understand a matter", it hells to look at the entire context.
You're replying to a comment where I've broken the sentence down into smaller parts. It's the best I can do.