On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:13:30 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote: > > Sharing our private information (i.e. our own browsing > > trends) for profit without our consent is evidently not on > > This carries the assumption that "our own browsing trends" is, in fact, > "private information", which I do not necessarily agree with.
It also assumes that Mozilla are making a profit from this. Being non-profit doesn't preclude any sort of income to cover costs. Gentoo is non-profit but sells CDs, mugs and t-shirts, as well as accepting donations. Netscape/AOL put a lot of money into Mozilla when they separated it, and some more later. Why was this OK but taking money from Google is such a sin? If it has been Microsoft I could understand the resistance, but when the World's best search engine takes out advertising (and this is what it boils down to) on the World's best browser it is nothing more than a sensible arrangement that helps both get better. Firefox and Mozilla have to have one search engine as the default, that would have been Google anyway, so they are simply accepting payment to maintain the status quo, while not forcing any restrictions on their customers. Now, how much are KDE getting for doing the same with Konqueror? -- Neil Bothwick 30 minutes of begging is not considered foreplay.
pgpQDNvEu8oKU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
