On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:14:26PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:05:34PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:52:10PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote: > > > > > http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox > > > > > > Just wondering if anyone had heard of this. Although, if true, it > > > certainly doesn't surprise me with todays corporate ethics as they are. > > > Just a bad mark on Mozilla. > > > > > > > I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla to > > make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could have > > made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's bad? This > > seems the same to me as Ford offering a television show free cars so > > that whenever you see a car in the show, it's a Ford. This is as old as > > advertising itself. > >
<snip> > > Even "IF" only one of those allegations are true, I'm disappointed in > Mozilla's choices. They were, until a few days ago, "non-profit". Google > may be the best general purpose search engine out there right now, but > "IF" Mozilla made it the default for cash, I have a problem with that. If > Mozilla knows that a Google search deposits cookies from sites never > visited, I have a problem with that. IANAL, and I'm not privvy to all the laws pertaining to non-profits, but I think that what really defines a non-profit is that no single person or group "profits" from the entity. And I think that non-profits routinely gain funds from investments in other entities. I'm not sure, but I think this is the case. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
