On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:07:22 AM UTC-5, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 10/06/15 06:21, bgal...@gmail.com wrote: > > (1) The Terms of Service and Privacy Policy claim to go into effect > > by installing their software. > > Whoa, there. Pocket's Privacy Policy applies if you use the > Firefox-integrated Pocket, sure. But are you sure their ToS apply? The > ToS from which you quote seem like they are designed for a proprietary > product; all Pocket-integration code in Firefox is open source. > > What is the URL for these Terms of Service, and what makes you think > they apply to Firefox Pocket?
The *ONLY* Terms of Service related to Pocket(TM) software seems to be at: https://getpocket.com/tos There is no exclusions listed for Pocket(TM) application in open source form. If you have a different Pocket(TM) ToS that applies to the open source version, please let us know. Currently, the *ONLY* ToS that I can find clearly states: "By installing the Pocket(tm) application, visiting our website or installing or using any of the Pocket Technologies, you are accepting these terms of service. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not install our application, access our website or use any of our products or services." So, since Pocket(TM) application is now part of Firefox, if you don't agree to the ToS then you are told not to install the application where due to the integration means users can't install *ANY* of Firefox without agreeing. There is nothing in the ToS that disabling the Pocket(TM) application releases the Firefox user from the ToS. The wording of the Pocket(TM) ToS requires *UNINSTALLING* the application (Firefox with Pocket integration) if the user doesn't agree. This should put obligations on Mozilla Foundation to update the "Know Your (lack of) Rights" document accordingly. > > 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). > > I'm pretty darn sure that's not true. I am pretty darn sure that is what the only terms of service document that Pocket(TM) provides says given it claims to apply simply by *INSTALLING* it. If you are pretty darn sure there is an exclusion, please quote the exclusion. > > (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? > > All Pocket code in Firefox is open source, full stop. There is applying the letter of open source (such as OpenJDK) and then there is adhering to the spirit of open source. The only Terms of Service document that Pocket(TM) makes available seems to make clear they have no intention of adhering to the spirit of open source. This is a rubber stamp job. > > (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." > > Again, not sure if that actually applies to Pocket-in-Firefox; but I > would fall over backwards in astonishment if someone who installed > Firefox was thereby legally prevented from writing a server compatible > with the Firefox Pocket API. If they intended to allow people to write a compatible server, why are they use an undocumented API call of "/v3/firefox/save"? Can you find anyplace at http://getpocket.com/developer/ which fully documents or even directly references what that API call does? If you are so sure of the legal basis that Firefox users are permitted by Pocket(TM), why don't you try supplying the documentation on that undocumented API call or a reference server implementation of it? Why is Mozilla now including code designed for a closed source API from a single vendor?? While it is similar in functionality to CEPH or OpenStack SWIFT, it is also enough different that anyone attempting to port the Firefox Pocket(TM) code to either of those might as just rewrite the code again from scratch. Mozilla Foundation should have done a better job of reviewing the Terms of Service before including this and attacking their own "Known Your Rights" document. They should not have done such a poor job of code review as to allow code that claims to follow the "Public API Documentation [at] http://getpocket.com/developer/"; and then later in the same code make API calls that are undocumented. Once this Pocket(TM) application integration is forced by the Mozilla Foundation on Firefox stable users, I will honor the requirements give to user not accepting of the ToS and perform the required uninstall of the Firefox/Pocket(TM) application. It isn't that I want to stop using Firefox, I just can't accept the Terms of Service that Firefox is now integrated into regardless of what features are enabled/disabled because of *INSTALL* time provisions being issued. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
