All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
If Mozilla wants to limit their use of my input, why the do I need to give them a full, non-exclusive license?
Have you considered what is driving this change?
Looking from the sidelines, I think it's all about money, specifically, how to make the development of Firefox sustainable. Yes, I'm aware of the cynical view that this is about lining the pockets of the CEO, I have no evidence for this.
I think that's essentially caused by how we have licensed open source software and had limited resources to combat abuse at the industrial scale that silicon valley companies have monetized other people's work.
Bruce Perens is attempting to erect "Post Open", but I'm not yet sure if that is going to solve the fundamental issues.
Disclaimer: I've worked a little on the community standards document for the post open project.
Being halfway between both sides, I can see the need for a monetary model to sustain development, yet I am challenged by the opacity that this feels like. The OP's point that it feels like a downward slide toward principles compromise is challenging. Especially in light of the enshittification of everything lately, Mozilla needs to do a better job communicating how this is not going down that path and yet also trying to sustain itself.
I'm looking into Ladybird browser that everyone here is talking about and I can't find anything about when they will release something.
Keep an eye on it, but it's not ready yet.
Time for Ladybird to release their first alpha?
Looks like Mozilla has decided they can no longer ignore the money they can gain from having more and more data to sell.
Joining Google on the ad/data sales Evil Side.
🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🖕
Will be very sad if they continue down this slippery slope. I guess my last donation will stay just that 🫠