Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's just another terrible decision in Mozilla's long history of mismanaging Firefox. They've been dumbing down the UI and turning Firefox into a me-too Chrome for the longest time. They broke plugin compatibility, harming Firefox's big killer feature. For the longest time they pretended their performance was competitive with Chrome, when it quite clearly wasn't.

You already mentioned the Pocket fiasco. I could've sworn they also once bundled a non-Free plugin for enhanced disabled access. They dragged their feet for years fixing a serious privacy issue regarding IndexedDB https://superuser.com/a/1250955/867963

Less scandalously, they use a non-standard licence for no clear reason.

The technical progress in Firefox has been great, but the history of mismanagement is awful. But I'm still using Firefox, for what that's worth.




> Less scandalously, they use a non-standard licence for no clear reason.

What are you talking about? Who defines "standard" for licenses?


The Mozilla Public License is not a standard licence. If you don't understand why it's unhelpful to muddy the waters with non-standard licences, here's a blog post: https://ben.balter.com/2016/08/01/why-you-shouldnt-write-you...


The MPL is very widely used. By what or whose standards is it a "non-standard license"?

It's listed in the OpenSource.org list of approved OS licenses: https://opensource.org/licenses

Your link is about writing your own open source license, not about which licenses are standard. Nowhere in that blog is any mention of Mozilla. I am not sure what you are trying to say by linking to it.


You got me - it's more recognised than I thought.

Wikipedia tells me it's a copyleft licence, but one that's 'weaker' than the GPL.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: