No one from the Mozilla Foundation must have bothered to read the Terms of Service for use Pocket(TM) Technologies.
This is critical because it has become clear from Oracle's handling of Java that just because software is released under an open source license doesn't mean that derived works will not result in a lawsuit. While Nate Weiner may not be the ass that Larry Ellison is, any company that has obligations to investors tends to do whatever they can to "protect" their "intellectual property" and I expect Pocket(TM) to be no exception. There are several red flags regarding Pocket(TM)'s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. In fact, there are so many that they go beyond the scope of my reply. I will just focus on the ones I find the most alarming. (1) The Terms of Service and Privacy Policy claim to go into effect by installing their software. By Mozilla Foundation including it as part of the Firefox install, the Pocket(TM) documents claim to require adherence even if the user never uses Pocket(TM). Hence, the documents put the user into a locked opt-in even if the disable Pocket(TM) from the config since they have still installed it. By it being left an add-on, the user was given a default opt-out. Despite this, the Pocket(TM) Terms of Service and Privacy Policy don't seem to be provided as part of the Firefox "know your rights." (2) The Terms of Service License Restrictions clearly *prohibits* redistribution. While Pocket(TM) has made it clear they intends the Mozilla Foundation to distribute the Pocket(TM) Technology application but does this exception to the Pocket(TM) Terms of Service extend to any other form of redistribution? Is this yet another way the Mozilla Foundation is trying to make life harder for groups like Debian? Is this a trend of ToS encumbered code which could lead to a potential lawsuit if left included in IceWeasel? (3) Pocket(TM) does not appear to provide any protocol description for providing a compatible service. Also, the Terms of Service prohibits writing one. More specifically, users that install the Pocket(TM) Technologies application can not "determine or attempt to determine any ... methods or techniques embodied in the Pocket application or any portion thereof." (4) Pocket(TM)'s Terms of Service also prohibits any modification or to create any derivative works based on the Pocket(TM) Technologies application. So, if you get around the previous issue and somehow create your own service compatible with the pocket-protocol, you can't modify the application to configure it to use an alternative server. Overall, everything about the Pocket(TM) Terms of Service goes against any claim that Pocket(TM) truly intends the included Pocket(TM) Technologies application under the spirit of the MPL. Any attempt to by users to leverage their rights under the MPL in regards to this code intermixed into Firefox will but the user in a legally precarious position. If Pocket(TM) did intend to honor the freedoms the Firefox community has come to expect, they would have done the following: (A) Clearly state in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that agreement only takes place at *USE* instead of claiming user agreement for installing. (B) Clearly state in the Terms of Service that the ToS License Restrictions do not apply to MPL covered code provided by Pocket(TM). (C) Provide a clear protocol description document to assist in third-parties maintaining or modify the code. (D) Provide a reference implementation of the server side of the pocket-protocol to assist in third parties maintaining or modifying the code and for users to setup their own private servers without having to accept the Pocket(TM) Privacy Policy. They would be under no obligation to provide support and could even make providing support only available via payment. Pocket(TM) has decided to do none of the things above. Instead, the bottom line is everything that MPL should allow are things the Pocket(TM) Terms of Service clearly indicates that Pocket(TM) is prepared to take legal action against doing. Mozilla's inclusion of this seems to be a bait and switch on their open source mission statement. This is not something that can just be "fixed" by providing instruction to "disable." _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
