How should they make it clearer? Their donate page says the donations are to "carry out our mission to keep the Web open and free" and links to a FAQ that details what the donations are used for and how Firefox is separate.
Except, "keep the web open and free" was a big part of the marketing around Firefox when the target was IE.
The New York Times ad was paid for through donations to present an alternative to the closed ecosystem dominated by one browser that didn't follow open standards.
Early versions of Firefox featured links to various news organizations and stories pulled from their feeds, until certain jurisdictions threatened to block the browser entirely.
At some point their missions may have diverged, but the marketing of both were closely intertwined. MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo. Other projects came later, but the community's understanding of their respective roles remained the same.
As a long-term observer I followed this closely when the Foundation and Commercial split was announced, and remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed.
>The New York Times ad was paid for through donations
While true, those donations were largely from sources connected to Netscape. If they had built a normal corporation, it'd be startup capital.
>MoFo accepted donations and other sources of funds which it used, in part, to fund development of a browser by MoCo
Mozilla Corporation saw $60 million in revenue in the first year, at no point were the donations a significant source of income.
>remember reassurance s about the core mission being loudly proclaimed.
Here's the actual "core mission" they launched at the time, note the pledge containing
>Use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform;
