I wouldn’t assume a corporation is a moral entity, Spotify’s only goal is to maximise profit. Maybe it’s a problem of our economic system or regulations around monopolies.
I wouldn’t assume a corporation is a moral entity, Spotify’s only goal is to maximise profit. Maybe it’s a problem of our economic system or regulations around monopolies.
Especially imagine it showing the price. If you buy a laptop with windows pre-installed, you also paid for a license.
There are talks in the EU with the DMA about bringing this back.
But they speak from a high a position of superiority and rightness.
Yeah, I guess your point stands. But also, it’s 221 mio for Mozilla as a whole. Firefox might again be a fraction of this. While e.g. the Linux foundation has a lower budget, with all the contributed work hours of volunteers / corporations, a fork of Firefox is more realistic than the 500 mio make it out to be.
Could even use the money for new open source projects or for funding the VLC fork.
Cost of development was 221 mio in 2022
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf
Buying previous generation products. I got something like a Braun series 5 instead of the newest series 9, as there isn’t that much difference.
Mozilla has a budget of around 200 mil for software development, so the 7 mil are probably not enough. Not defending the high pay though.
Also, AI Integration into browsers could very well be a deciding factor for mainstream users when choosing a browser. So having some expertise around e.g. running LLMs privacy preserving on client hardware for page summarisation could pay off. Llamafile for example, is something cool coming from the Mozilla AI stuff.
Even if this were not covered by copyright. Our copyright system is broken and laws can be changed. Especially if they don’t correspond to what the majority sees as moral.
Tbh, if you get such a notice, you could also disagree with them and get a lawyer. It’s just that your situation is much more clearly in breach of copyright.
Google does not just show a link. It scrapes the content of the page to build a search index, i.e. consomes the content. This happens without explicit permission and in the past, there were no opt-out ways. Then they use this knowledge to provide search go users and incorporate ads to make money without paying the original pages. Google also started to show you these handy answers by showing some text section scraped from the page.
Like, there certainly is a similarity. And there is the difference that Google mostly feeds users to the original webpage while GenAI can replace the content.
Content unavailable :(
Realistically, that would be quite an overreaction and the corporation does have valuable knowledge and skill in creating trains. But how great it would be if this were to cause open source code to be a requirement…
She’s CEO of Mozilla foundation (charity) but also Mozilla corporation (normal business).
There are people profiting from this either by owning the investment firms e.g. through stocks or by working in them in highly paid positions. In a democracy, the majority might be for such a law, but certainly not everyone.
You can file web compatibility bugs on bugzilla.mozilla.org or webcompat.com
There are different ways how bugs are fixed. But someone might reach out to the page itself, find and fix a bug in Firefox or change the web specification if the incompatibility arises from ambiguity around the feature definition.
Firefox can also ship an intervention, basically injecting code into certain websites to fix broken ones.
Some incompatibilities can arise from missing features in Firefox, the web constantly evolves and the Devs sometimes don’t catch up. But bugs might still help, as high compatibility-risk features might be implemented more quickly.
winget install -i Mozilla.Firefox -e
Looking at Twitter/X, this won’t be the final nail. People stick to the platforms they’re on as long as it doesn’t directly Negative impacts them too much.
By the contract, you couldn’t say anything detrimental about the game, so such a statement would still be forbidden. Whether such a vague limitation on what a content creator can say would hold up in court is a different thing.