This is essentially what Mozilla is doing but providing a legal framework for all open source projects.

As an open source developer, my initial reaction is that this isn’t good. You’re just shifting the problem. Your code remains open source so if you have a python or JavaScript library that doesn’t require compiling, you can’t use this.

Not only that, but FOSS requires you to provide build instructions for your binaries. Someone can clone your repository and run it through CI/CD and have a binary.

I’m willing to be proven wrong here.

I’ve seen only one method work well: strong copyleft FOSS licenses like AGPL that essentially make it impossible for a company like Amazon from profiting off your code without a separate agreement.

You could add a non-commercial clause to your open source license. I can’t find the one that I used to use back in the day but essentially the goal is to augment whatever license you use by attaching a preamble that dictates how the software can be used.

Attaching that clause does push the software out of FOSS and into source available since you are restricting who can use the software, which is why I stopped using it.

Edit: found the clause I used to use back in the day. I don’t personally recommend it over more copy left licenses.

Librewolf btw.

I’ve personally moved to Waterfox and very much enjoying the experience, with a few hiccups.

There may be Mac specific browsers that might be a better fit. I don’t use a Mac personally but could be worth going through the App store to see what is out there.

You’re welcome. I’ve been covering this issue since it’s been announced. There are a number of accounts who are either deliberately spreading misinformation or who have a very poor understanding of how software licenses work.

Anyone who tells you that these terms are normal for a locally run browser is making the posts in bad faith.

Mozilla’s new TOU only covers pre built Firefox executables, not the source code.

Librewolf and Waterfox are good forks that would not be bound to the TOU.

They do not. Your use of the software, with software you “control” (edge cases of cloud compute, etc.) does not require you to grant a license to the software.

I refuted most of these points on this user’s post.

This is absolutely abnormal. No browser should require a license to my own data unless they plan on doing something with it.

No other FOSS includes this language and I would argue that Firefox executable is no longer FOSS. It’s now source available.