Mozilla Reponds - We Call the Shots, Not Google.

An anonymous reader writes "Recent articles in the New York Times and at CNET have highlighted the growing concern that Google holds significant power and influence over Firefox's development. In an interview published today, Mozilla's technology strategist Mike Shaver did his best to proclaim Mozilla's independence. Yes, Google pays Mozilla $56 million per year, Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution). Shaver insists that in spite of these ties, Mozilla still calls the shots over Firefox's development."

Comments

so who gets the money?

[EllynGeek]

They're still dodging the question of how to spend all those millions. Sure, the devs and people who support Firefox are all happy. But that happiness will evaporate if they don't think the money is being handled fairly. So as both a non-profit and a FOSS project, which are both accountable in different ways, what is going to happen to all that nice fluffy cash?

Re:Do they?

[Threni]

> The mozilla foundation didn't want firefox in the first place. But I guess since firefox has gotten bigger, slower, and more bloated over time...

I didn't want, initially, to use shitty non-standards compliant (ie Netscape) software, but it's got more compliant over time. Presumably Google are in favour of standards as Google users won't only be using Firefox, so frankly Mozilla can either 1) do what Google want, or 2) risk Google going alone with their own browser based on Firefox code.

Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[baldusi]

I know I'll be tagged as paranoid. But it might explain why Mozilla separated Thunderbird. Google doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP. They want you to use the web. It just might just have been one of the reasons that were considered when making the decision.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[nyctopterus]

It's offered because a lot of people (including me) wouldn't use gmail at all if they didn't. I do used the webmail interface occasionally when I don't have my computer handy, so at least they get that.

Of course Mozilla calls the shots...

[uniquename72]

It's open source. If Google wanted to be in control, they would just release their own version.

I RTFA'd, and the whole issue reads like tin-foil hat paranoia or just plain old FUD. Where are the examples of Mozilla bowing to Google's wishes (outside of making them the default search, which they're paying for)?

watch the pretty birdie

[SuperBanana]

Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution)

...which is the real issue here, to me...though absurd compensation for the CEO and very lopsided revenue from google are others (NO organization should rely on ONE source for its money. Diversification is the name of the game.) Google's services are heavily bundled AND set as the default where there is choice. Does this sound familiar, anyone?

Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite, or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count) or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?

Re:watch the pretty birdie

[asa]

> Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite,
> or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers
> similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed
> to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to
> allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count)
> or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?

I take it you've never used Firefox. We include other search services. We've even defaulted to other search services in some geographic locales. The interface for switching among the included services is super easy and even adding services that are not included are easy to add with a click or two (and there are over 13,000 of them available at mycroft.mozdev.org)

Not only that, any of these companies could (and some do) distribute a custom version of Firefox with their features as the default.

- A

Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[melted]

And then rotate through three major search engines every quarter. This quarter it'll be Yahoo, next - Microsoft, then Google again. I'm sure both Yahoo and Microsoft will be delighted to participate.

Re:I was like that too

[griffjon]

This is all well and good; but look at Flock, which is Firefox + lots of web 2.0 integration, and very Yahoo-centric. No matter how much moolah Google pours into the Mozilla foundation, at the end of the day, it's still providing crunchy, wholesome GPL'ed software. If Google suddenly turns evil; the code still belongs to the community and if Mozilla won't cut the relationship, someone can fork a version out and cut out the Google-centric features.

A good bit of caution is wise, but let's not look a $56 million/year gift to the OSS community in the mouth overmuch.

interesting

[wwmedia]

its interesting how the most comments defend mozilla just cause of google's "do no evil" image

now imagine the outcry if firefox came with live.com as default search and microsoft paud mozilla oh i dunno 120 big ones?

Re:Remove the defaults

[Babbster]

You're suggesting we optimize for the minority case and that's a cop-out that all too many software programs opt for. Most users don't want to have to configure their browser before they start using it. They want it to "just work" and that's what we aim to deliver.

I'm glad you do, too. Getting my parents up and running with Firefox was a matter of installing the package, having Firefox take over as the default browser in XP and telling the folks not to click the blue "e" anymore. Since her first week with it, my mom hasn't had a single Firefox-related problem. If she has to install it again on another PC, she knows right where to go and will be up and running in minutes, but if she had to sit down and configure it she would just use IE until I had a chance to set it up - if she told me in the first place. So, thanks for not requiring configuration. :)

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[DragonWriter]

What you said is true, but then why do people who even request fixes and changes get a ton of +5 insightful 'if you don't like it, for it' replies here on Slashdot?

(1) Because slashdot moderation is fairly meaningless. There are lots of + reasons, and very few - reasons, and concepts that are 180-degrees opposed, on the same thread, will get modded up to +5 because different segments of the community approve for different reasons.

(2) Because Slashdot isn't the place to request a fix, and "if you don't like it, fork it" is about the best that can be reasonably expected of Slashdot (except where there is an existing fix, in which case, "if you don't like it, use foo that fixes the problem" is the best response.)

Is that a reasonable response to someone who's asking to fix bugs and leaks?

If they are asking on Slashdot (and not in a thread gathering questions for, say, a lead Mozilla developer for a Slashdot interviewer or an Ask Slashdot piece looking for existing patches, add-ons, etc., that address a need), yes.

If they are asking, say, on Bugzilla, maybe or maybe not, that depends what the specific "bug and leaks" in question are. In many cases, "we don't view this as a high priority fix; you are welcome to either fork Firefox or submit a patch on your own" would be a reasonable response.

Re:I was like that too

[jalefkowit]

And here's at least one case where Mozilla did not, in fact, call the shots: Bug 364297. (I'd link directly to Bugzilla but they don't accept links from /.)

Quote from the bug:

Per contract requirements with Google, we need to make Google our default home page and search provider in CJKT locales.

For the home page. This may involve simply changing the DNS entries rather than the builds themselves.

For the search engine, we need to select Google as the default.

(Emphasis above is mine. "CJKT locales" is shorthand for China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Prior to this bug being filed these locales' default search provider had been Yahoo.)