>but very little of the money given to them goes to the browser itself or even their research projects
They can't take money given to a 501c3 charitable organization and use it to fund the expenses of a for-profit corporation (Mozilla Corp). That would be tax fraud. On the other hand the Mozilla Corp has to exist because otherwise it would be legally challenging to do a lot of things they need to do such as business deals. Exceedingly few Foundations work that way without doing something akin to what Mozilla does.
>Its concerning to me though because that means Google has influence in Firefox, so "using the alternative" still means being affected by Google's decision making. ... They have stood against some of Google's decisions like their web DRM, which is great! But I do wonder if any lower-profile changes might have been pushed through on Google's request.
HNers say this often but nobody has ever freaking pointed to anything. It's nothing but FUD at this point and it's incredibly tiring.
I disagree that its FUD. The fact of the matter is that Google is their biggest financial contributor, and that means by proxy Google can influence them. I don't have any examples right off the bat, but that doesn't discount the fact that it's a clear conflict of interest.
>The fact of the matter is that Google is their biggest financial contributor, and that means by proxy Google can influence them. I don't have any examples right off the bat,
Exhibit A.
Fine, it's a potential conflict of interest. But there's still a step between having a potential conflict of interest and being compromised by Google / influenced by proxy. You don't get to jump from point A to point B. That's FUD.
There are near-monthly examples of Mozilla going against Google on big-ticket items, and nobody seems to be able to point to any examples otherwise, but we're supposed to criticize them for being too dependent on Google while ALSO criticizing them for profitable side-projects or cross-marketing that diversifies their revenue (like VPN, Pocket, the Disney movie thing, etc.)
Simultaneously:
* "how dare they work on something other than Firefox even if it makes money" and
> Simultaneously: "how dare they work on something other than Firefox even if it makes money" and "how dare they monetize Firefox" and "how dare they take so much money from Google"
Yes. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of a non-profit? Specifically a foundation, organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes?
okay, and Librewolf is a fork of Firefox. even if I was worried, I'm not exactly reassured that Librewolf would be peachy if Mozilla got hit hard by something.
I'd rather Google does pull that trigger so we can get some anti-trust going. They've been overdue for years on that front.
They can't take money given to a 501c3 charitable organization and use it to fund the expenses of a for-profit corporation (Mozilla Corp). That would be tax fraud. On the other hand the Mozilla Corp has to exist because otherwise it would be legally challenging to do a lot of things they need to do such as business deals. Exceedingly few Foundations work that way without doing something akin to what Mozilla does.
>Its concerning to me though because that means Google has influence in Firefox, so "using the alternative" still means being affected by Google's decision making. ... They have stood against some of Google's decisions like their web DRM, which is great! But I do wonder if any lower-profile changes might have been pushed through on Google's request.
HNers say this often but nobody has ever freaking pointed to anything. It's nothing but FUD at this point and it's incredibly tiring.