Can we have some perspective here? His livelihood has been at no point under threat. Unless you have some evidence that the CEO job was somehow keeping him from the poorhouse, this is just a ridiculous term to use here.
He still works for Mozilla (as far as I can tell) and he almost certainly still has a significant say in how it's run through the shares he almost certainly has (I can't find any specifics on it in a cursory search, but it would be astounding if it were not so).
But when he made that donation, he was tying himself to a cause. As an officer of a company he is a face of that company. This is true in all companies and for all causes, and it was his choice to make the donation and the company's choice to appoint him to a position where that donation would reflect poorly on them.
I'll grant you I was misinformed on the latter, but can you point to some source on him not working for Mozilla at all anymore? Nothing I can see says anything but that he stepped down from the CEO role and his board position on the Foundation (which would be where he could still have a say in the running of Mozilla, I don't think it was the goal of the boycott to have him leave the Foundation board so it seems a little excessive to me).
That is a shame if so, as his technical contributions are still clearly valuable.
He still works for Mozilla (as far as I can tell) and he almost certainly still has a significant say in how it's run through the shares he almost certainly has (I can't find any specifics on it in a cursory search, but it would be astounding if it were not so).
But when he made that donation, he was tying himself to a cause. As an officer of a company he is a face of that company. This is true in all companies and for all causes, and it was his choice to make the donation and the company's choice to appoint him to a position where that donation would reflect poorly on them.