A company with a public offering basically cannot refuse a large enough buyout because with a public offering comes a financial responsibility to the shareholders. Public stock is a contract saying give me money and I’ll do my best to make you money back, and it’s very legally binding.
You can avoid this by never going public, but that also means you basically don’t get big investors for expanding what you can offer. A public offering involves losing some of your rights as owner for cash.
When the legal goal becomes “money above all else”, it is hard to justify NOT selling all the data and violating the trust of your customers for money, customer loyalty has to be monetizable and also worth more.
Proton has given a majority share to a nonprofit with a legal requirement to uphold the current values, not make money. This means that the remaining ownership can be sold to whoever, the only way anything gets done is if this foundation agrees. It prevents everything associated with a legal financial responsibility to make money, but still allows the business to do business things and make money, which seems to be proton’s founder’s belief, that the software should be sold to be sustainable.
Seems solid.
It doesn’t change a ton, but the point was basically them putting their money where their mouth is and saying “now we can’t sell out like everything else.”
If you liked them before, this is great. It means google or whoever literally can’t buy them out, it’s not about the money. If you were iffy already because they’re not FOSS or whatever other reason, this doesn’t change that, either, for better or worse
Mozilla still has terms and conditions, so there’s still a relationship, and still a liability for them letting a customer misuse their browser, even if they don’t keep data on everyone.
While I absolutely agree it’s ridiculous, as I read it, it would also apply to self-hosted software and things like thunderbird that are technically a browser.
Still, I expect enforcement to really only care about “real” browsers, not one user and their own thing or someone using Thunderbird to browse the web. France (and most other governments) have shown multiple times that they don’t really look into the how they’d do these things before they try to make it law and it’d be a mess.
As per the article this post linked, this would definitely be a new precedent, browsers have never been responsible for this content, and whatever actually happens is up in the air. I’m mostly talking worst-case scenario. It’s entirely possible some other business or consumer protection law makes this unenforceable, or any number of other situations, but since the French government decides how unreasonable they’re gonna be, that’s all up to them. Maybe they crusade against Firefox, maybe they give up when they realize there’s only so much to do without drafting even more, and maybe they do go after everyone, including thunderbird or any other app that opens a webpage. Probably just ones that navigate to the illegal webpages though.
Still, a measure that’s completely defeated by a VPN, unless they add all of them to their illegal pages.
Making something available when it’s not legal to do so is still a crime. Mozilla can’t put the burden of “Is this illegal?” on the downloader. On top of that, with the specific nature of this law, they’ll likely get added to this blocked list.
“For research” changes nothing, there isn’t an exception for research in the French law (as far as I know, at least).
Nothing would stop a French person from taking extra steps to circumvent the law, so it’s true that it could be gotten around with a VPN or peer-to-peer sharing of the installer, and Mozilla isn’t liable for that, but also that would still dramatically reduce Firefox installs in France. It isn’t really a good solution for Firefox to need the same steps as piracy for people to access it.
Firefox not needing user accounts isn’t that relevant, because it’s the distribution of illegal software that will be acted upon.
While it’s true that they wouldn’t necessarily have to pay a French fine, most large companies have assets in a lot of nations. For Mozilla, this could be people that translate the browser to French, who may have office space or supplies, and the French government could seize Mozilla’s French assets, which also impacts their other projects like Thunderbird.
A search tells me they do have such an office in Paris which would be threatened by their noncompliance, which does include just telling French people it’s illegal but letting them do it anyway.
Firefox is open source but it’s controlled by the Mozilla Foundation.
The steps would be
- Pass the law
- Tell Mozilla they’re breaking the law
- Do things to them as they’re breaking the law
It could be fines, it could be banning firefox in France. The good/bad roles are flipped, but anything anyone has tried to do to meta can be done to Mozilla, too. The only alternative Mozilla would have would be purposefully pulling Firefox from France.
Ultimately, Mozilla would have a vote of some kind, deciding to capitulate or pull firefox (or just keep paying fees, potentially, but they’re not made of money).
It’s a bit different because of the stated values though.
Raspberry pi’s foundation is focused on making computers available broadly, while this new organization is focused on making privacy widely accessible.
While both can be commercialized, the pi’s foundation has no fundamental problems with selling out privacy or focusing on money to achieve those goals. Proton would have a much harder time arguing that profiting from sale.of private data supports privacy.
This is relevant because it means even if the remaining shares end up on the stock market, the foundation can use its majority ownership to veto any privacy concerns.
Time will tell. I could also have missed something