We ended up merging the threads to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909 since it had the original source and was posted first.

Discussions

(100 points, 1 day ago, 30 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43187423

(132 points, 10 hour ago, 106 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194536

Something to note here is that these terms only apply to the executable from an "authorized source". I'm not entirely sure what makes a source "authorized", but I would think it wouldn't include something you compile yourself, or say the Archlinux package that isn't compiled by Mozilla. IANAL.

Still. The very existence of this policy feels contradictory to the spirit of Open Source. And it has several conerning things in it:

> 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.

This just seems to broad and ambiguous. In other comments there are justifications that "as you indicate" restricts what Mozilla can do, but it is still pretty vague what that means, and due to the ambiguity of English, there is ambiguity in what the scope of that qualifier is.

> 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.

So, even if you think the current terms are OK, Mozilla can change them at any time, without notice.

> Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason

Pretty self explanatory why that is bad.

[dupe] earlier and related:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43187423

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43194536

The title of the article is "Firefox terms of use." Why are we allowing the editorializing of the title?