From the new terms:
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
Personally, I’ve never seen a Terms of Service about granting any software a license to do things on my own device before.
Is this normal? Have I just not been looking in the right places?
I’m not an expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but here’s what I feel has been more and more the case… It’s interesting that the examples you set are all hardware communicating with other hardware. That is a key point because any company selling you those devices can easily defend themselves legally if you decide to sue them for using your data just by saying “how else would we get the device working? It is fundamental to read your data to make the device do what is advertised for” and the case would be dropped faster than my dog comes when I open his food. Now imagine the keyboard company is caught sending the key strokes to their servers… Without a good terms of use contract they would lose immediately against legal action. And even a terms of use contract might be considered null if it is proven to be abusive or something.
When it comes to a software company things get a lot blurrier. It’s harder to define the needs for some actions and how things could work vs how they work. So I think it’s not uncommon to have this kind of clauses in such cases, specially for getting user data for maintenance and so on. It was less common in the past but as there are more practical cases and experience of where the law draws lines and limits this kind of additions and edits of user contracts are becoming pretty normal.
You make a fair point, and I think I did stumble into a bit of an apples and oranges comparison here.
As far as I know, though, even software with expansive functionality – including other web browsers, and whole operating systems like Linux itself – don’t have these types of TOSes either. And if we look at Linux in particular, several flavors of it are maintained by some pretty big companies. Red Hat and Ubuntu are heavyweights in the server industry; they’re not as big as Microsoft, perhaps, but I imagine they have their own legal teams.
Yeah, absolutely, I think these changes done for Firefox are not “that” common, but they are not unheard of either. I have been trying to remember what was it the news that made me think of this kind of terms of use before, some other service doing very similar changes with similar intent. But I just can’t remember it…
With all of this I dont intend to imply that we have nothing to worry and we can trust in Mozilla without second thought. Each of their actions need to be consider as their own and it wouldn’t be the first time they have some misstep. With that out of the way, this particular situation is not the red flag or big issue that many might immediately think it is.
As for the reasons as to why this is happening right now, I have a couple of guesses. One is AI, and the usage of user data for their training and so on, Mozilla is just trying to clarify in legalese what they are allowed to do with our data when we use their software, likely looking towards the future to protect themselves in case it’s needed. The other guess I have for this kind of change is the current situation with IP owners and intermediaries. In essence I am talking of how ISPs and VPNs are under attack for the use of their services by their users.
But anyway, like I said I’m no expert in legalese, this whole topic seems “OK” to me, but we’ll need to keep our eyes open for any future misconduct or overreach by Mozilla with these new terms.
You’re correct that this isn’t exactly common practice, but it does generally make sense from the stance of legal protectionism. Mozilla just wants to make sure that no maliciously inclined user can try and argue that Mozilla didn’t have a right to use the content they put in the browser, when the browser could only do what that user wanted by putting that data in.
It’s not exactly necessary based on existing precedent, but to me at least, it seems like they’re preparing for situations where cases are brought and try to argue based on things that don’t have existing precedent. For instance, if you look at how new a lot of the arguments and defenses of AI are in court, if a user tried to argue that Mozilla didn’t have permission to send their data to an AI company if they highlighted some text and sent it to the AI sidebar, there’s a chance the court wouldn’t go based on existing precedent, and instead try to argue based on if Mozilla had a right to send that data, which this clause would then clearly, very objectively cover.
TLDR; I personally don’t think they really needed to do it, but it doesn’t functionally change anything about what they’re capable of doing compared to before.