The Mozilla Foundation 493
gemal writes "We're very pleased to announce the creation of the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organization that will serve as the new home for mozilla.org. The Mozilla Foundation will continue mozilla.org's work of coordinating the development of the Mozilla codebase. With an independent non-profit as the legal home for Mozilla, we will also promote the distribution and adoption of Mozilla applications and technologies. In addition, we will raise funds to ensure Mozilla's long-term survival." Update: 07/15 21:47 GMT by T : Yablo writes "MozillaZine is running a blurb about how since earlier today, when the Mozilla Foundation was created, AOL has laid off all the Gecko developers. Ex-mozilla.org has a list of the casualties."
Sayonara (Score:5, Funny)
Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the "Mozilla is dead" postings start in 3..2..
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that it is specifically a Non-Profit organization, donations are just that. Assuming they did the whole legal tax-deductible non-profit group corporation, people will be much more inclined to donate.
Companies making their corporate standard browser a free browser and getting a tax write-off by supporting the browser will be prevelant, I think.
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not as prevalent as companies simply using Mozilla and paying zero, however.
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:5, Insightful)
People may not contribute as much money to the foundation, but maybe they'll be more inclined to contribute more code. It's easy to give some IP back to a non profit, it's hard to give IP to AOL.
Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses (Score:5, Insightful)
From the parent:
> what happens in a few years when the Foundation has A) run out of money, and B) hasn't gotten any significant donations?
From the site:
> AOL, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, and other companies will continue to support Mozilla through the Foundation.
I wouldn't worry. Me thinks these companies et al will stop supporting Mozilla when Internet Explorer has a user base of <5%. These are big competitors of Microsoft. Either way, if the money dries up, I would be surprised if people still didn't continue to develop Mozilla (even if it's at a slower pace).
There will always be alternatives.
Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses (Score:5, Insightful)
AOL, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat,
Note that these competitors of Microsoft don't have:
Sun can't afford to develop competitive successors to its UltraSPARC hardware in a timely fashion. Meanwhile, Lintel servers are eating into the UNIX server business, making the market much smaller than it was once (the flip side is that Lintel make Wintel look expensive, even if Wintel is cheaper than Solaris/SPARC). These days, the one reason to go with Sun over Linux on clusters is for HA 64-way high throughput machines connected to SANs. Despite the margins on that class of machine, not everyone needs one, and there are ferocious competitors like IBM, HP and SGI with which to contend.
Red Hat is only now barely getting profitable, mainly selling Linux services. They certainly don't have oodles of money to throw around.
IBM is really the only financially strong player in the whole deck.
Despite my pessimistic tone, I'm a Mozilla (and now Firebird) user and wish the project success. I will continue to be a Mozilla advocate because I want to see open standards on my computer instead of yet another road to getting ruled.
Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses (Score:4, Interesting)
That's another thing; there are many issues with IE, as has been noted by many people (CSS, transparent .png, etc. etc.) not to mention popups. I just can't see why people would choose IE if they knew what firebird offered.
I can't help wondering, if people just got the word out, more people would use mozilla, and thereby mozilla would get more money in it's coffers. If mozilla can get a relatively large user base (Say, 10-20%) then I would hope they wouldn't have a problem getting funds.
Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses (Score:5, Informative)
Even slower? Molasses on a cold day comes to mind
I didn't miss the wink but it still sounds like you were agreeing with the "slow" pace of development comment. I don't really think it's very slow. Even just comparing features (including support for emerging web standards) with the popular IE browser, I don't think our development pace is slow.
But beyond just new features, if you look at the actual code change (about 80,000 lines changed in the last year) and the bugs fixed (about 9,000 bugzilla records resolved as fixed in the last year,) it's seems wrong to call that slow.
I think we've been moving at a pretty good clip this last year with the addition of great new features like junk-mail controls, NTLM auth, find as you type, link pre-fetching, download manager, major improvements to usability of killer features like pop-up blocking, and tabbed browsing, much improved look and feel, more complete support for web standards, much better website compatibility and big gains in performance.
If you don't think much has changed or that we're moving too slow, then go download Mozilla 1.0 (from about a year ago) and use it side by side with the latest release, Mozilla 1.4. Compare that to the improvements that Microsoft has made in the last year.
--Asa
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:3, Interesting)
Shed a tear for poor old Netscape - the Internet as we know it wouldn't have existed without it, and it was killed off as much by (proven illegal) busine
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:3, Informative)
It is. A developer with a nominal salary of $50k each (not too high, really, for a good developer) costs about double that once you factor in the taxes the employer has to pay on the salary (FICA, etc), the benefits the employee gets (health insurance, etc) and such sundry items.
In real terms, a single decent developer probably costs about $120k per year.
So the $2 million is something, but more money will have to get raised if the mozilla foundation act
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is, we need fulltime developers
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
Re:Sayonara (Score:4, Insightful)
AOL may be pleased to "dump" it. But I'm pleased they are too. In addition to the autonomy, perhaps other ISPs (Earthlink, etc) may be more willing to adopt Mozilla as their default browser now that it's disassociated with AOL.
It's too popular and useful to die. The foundation will continue to be supported by the major Linux players (with developers, hardware and money) just like Linux itself is.
-j
Re:Sayonara (Score:4, Interesting)
Your question implies that Netscapes 6 and 7 were closed source. This is only partially true - the bits like AIM were closed, but the MPLed bits were open.
In the future, as now, any use of the code by Netscape/AOL will be under the MPL (or another license like the LGPL, if all Mozilla code is available under it, and AOL chooses to use it instead for whatever reason.)
No-one will ever have to pay mozilla.org for the right to use the source. That's what open source means. And no-one will be able to pay anyone for the right to produce a closed-source version - because doing that requires permission from several thousand copyright holders. mozilla.org does not own the copyright to Mozilla.
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
Re:Sayonara (Score:3, Interesting)
To the Mozilla Developers. Take this opportunity to be radical. Let's go back and view what the browser is and what it could be. I suggest that they take a look at things like:
DashBoard [nat.org].
Haystack [mit.edu]
and Echo [sixapart.com].
Information begs to be consolidated and made useful. We can do more with the browser then just view static stateless pages.
ODP (Score:3, Interesting)
So, no more AOL/Netscape support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean that Netscape (rather, AOL-Time-Warner) is withdrawing its support? Will they still be providing facilities, network connectivity, etc. or will the Mozilla Foundation have to raise all that on its own? Will Netscape be providing any money to the Mozilla Foundation?
Re:So, no more AOL/Netscape support? (Score:4, Informative)
off the front page of the site. Moz continues to get its support, they're just polishing up a bat to hit Gates with a few times.
Read the f***ing article! (Score:5, Informative)
"To help launch the new organization, America Online has pledged $2 million in cash to the Mozilla Foundation over the next two years. AOL will also contribute additional resources through equipment, domain names and trademarks, and related intellectual property, as well as providing some transitional assistance for key personnel as they move into the new organization."
Re:Read the f***ing article! (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as we might hate AOL for littering the physical world with their signup CDs and the virtual world with their users, one has to give them props for continuing to support Mozilla.
Granted, they mainly have used Mozilla as a barganing chip to get a deal with MS, but I suspect that isn't a long term situation anyway.
Re:Read the article! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all. The IP donations include the mozilla.org trademark and domain name, which are very far from worthless. They also include the MPL license.
Gerv
Re:Read the article! (Score:4, Informative)
I can assure the 2 people out there who a) read this deep into this thread, and b) actually think there's some non-zero chance of this happening, that mozilla.org will not have pop-up advertising.
Anyway, who would see it? Everyone uses Mozilla's popup blocker.
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
Re:Read the f***ing article! (Score:5, Funny)
Hope they don't blow it all on a Superbowl ad.
Re:Read the f***ing article! (Score:3, Funny)
What if they get Terry Tate?
"Woo-woo! You KNOW you OTS ta use tha LIZARD to put cover sheets on yo TPS report, RICHARD!! You don't come into MY KITCHEN, an use a CLOSED SOURCE mail client to SUBMIT...Hey, Janice! :}!"
Re:Read the f***ing article! (Score:4, Informative)
Who said they get paid? (Score:3, Interesting)
Employee benefits take a huge chunk out of your paycheck - health insurance and the like aren't free - the company has to pay for them. Also, every dollar you pay in taxes is matched by the company - not in some "matching program", but simply in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and other federal taxes.
Then, after all that is said and done, the company gets around to renting/buying office space, buy
Re:So, no more AOL/Netscape support? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Mozilla development and advocacy becomes a non-profit organization.
2) AOL/Time Warner contributes all the same money that they used to contribute.
3) AOL/Time Warner now gets to write off the contribution because it's to a non-profit organization.
Re:So, no more AOL/Netscape support? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it ironic that the top cells don't render the way they meant in Mozilla 1.4? They shouldn't be using tables for layout!
Re:Wow (Score:2)
-Cyc
Re:Wow (Score:2)
2) The slashbox is likely based on an RSS feed from mozilla.org. If anyone's at fault, it's the Mozilla team for not updating their feed.
3) The fixed 11pt font on mozilla.org is actually the worst part of all. I finally get around to upgrading to Phoenix 0.6 and this is the reward I get? Unreadable text? Yucch.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
@import url("/frontpage/nav4Sucks.css");
This wouldn't happen to be a reference to Netscape Navigator 4, would it?
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I just noticed is the new(?) Firebird logo. Doesn't it look like a prettier Quake logo, or is it just me?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
invalid HTML.
Hopefully fixed in CVS; waiting for the site to sync.
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
looks like Moz is getting serious (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess Mozilla's ready to actively try to knock IE down.
Maybe, Maybe not... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe, Maybe not... (Score:3, Interesting)
too late... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
The technical aspects aside, I don't think the companies are in this for winning a war on Microsoft. But they do want there to be alternatives so IE can't exercise (read: abuse) monopoly power, particularly since the browser is the primary control of the Internet experience influencing all kinds of other services (searches, default bookmarks, passport integration etc.)
They're interested in supporting Mozilla to ensure it stays a viable alternative, but I hardly think they'll use more money than they have to in order to compete against a "free" product. "free" in the meaning of "at no apparent cost to Joe Sixpack"
Kjella
Re:looks like Moz is getting serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla will never knock IE down.
Why?
Because I know HUNDREDS of people that refer to IE as "the internet".
If the IE shortcut gets deleted? "My internet is gone."
You can't fight the internet guys...sorry.
-Ben
Re:looks like Moz is getting serious (Score:5, Interesting)
(Yes, I know that there are a small percentage of sites out there that are brain-dead and REQUIRE IE, but if my parents never come across them, I'm betting many other people don't either. If you believe Jakob Nielson, users encountering such a site would just go find another one anyway, unless they needed it for work, banking, etc.)
[And no, I didn't trick my parents like that. They're sentient enough that I can explain to them why to use Mozilla instead of IE, and they like it better anyway.]
Re:looks like Moz is getting serious (Score:3, Funny)
If the IE shortcut gets deleted? "My internet is gone."
You say that like it's a bad thing if these folks can't get on the internet any more.
Re:looks like Moz is getting serious (Score:4, Insightful)
If the IE shortcut gets deleted? "My internet is gone."
I've had Mozilla Firebird as my default browser on my home windows box since the first alpha release of Phoenix. At this time I removed the IE shortcut from my wife's desktop and replaced it with a Phoenix shortcut and then told her to use that for web access in the future.
Recently, I had to reinstall the box, and forgot to replace her shortcut, and guess what... She said "My interet is gone". So what you say is true, but it doesn't just apply to IE.
FWIW: I told my wife to use IE until I got round to fixing the shortcut, she later complained that IE was not as good as the "normal internet" she was used to using.
Hm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hm. (Score:4, Informative)
Hm, so does this mean (Score:3, Interesting)
Two Questions: (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Why should I give money to Mozilla when I don't give money to and other open-source software I use? Why do they need it? What will they use it for?
2. Would said contribution be tax-deductible (not all non-profit donations are)?
Unfortunately for them, they're competing for my donated dollar against the EFF, the ACLU and (this year) whoever tries to unseat George Bush Jr. They need to make a lot better case for themselves if they're going to warrent a piece of that pie...
Re:Two Questions: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Two Questions: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure what I would think about that. It seems sneaky...but it's good for mozilla...hmmm...i'm torn....
Re:Two Questions: (Score:3, Informative)
To the extent they actually spend money, it would have been deductible to AOL anyway as a business expense.
The question comes up when they give more in a year than they spend. That lets them (1) accelerate the deduction to the present for spending in the future (provided they make the donation now) and (2) let the money accumulate and earn interest tax-free, since it will be owned by a tax-exempt.
So it is an issue, but other people do get away with similar things.
Re:Two Questions: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why don't you give to the other open-source software projects?"
I know it seems like a pain, but pick a few of your favorites (maybe 3 to 5) and start setting aside a little money. Collect your spare change, or sell something on eBay, or whatever. Then donate 5 to 10 bucks to each of the projects.
I would expect you'd want to feel reasonably certain the developers will put the money to good use (buying helpful books or equipment), rather than dipping into the project fund to buy pizza and beer. Still, I imagine that once you've selected some worthy projects and sent them a little money it will make you feel good to have helped, and maybe you'll even be more likely to do it again in the future.
Re:Two Questions: (Score:4, Interesting)
I figured someone would ask that.
First, you should know that I'm by no stretch of the imagination a rich man [slashdot.org]. I can pay my bills, make my car payments (I don't drive an expensive car), set aside a little money but that leaves me pretty much broke.
Given that, I have to carefully prioritize where my money goes. Last year, I contributed to the ACLU, the EFF and to my public radio station, KQED. These are all good causes which, in my opinion, do demonstratively good things with my money and they all are tax deductible donations.
That's what any OSS project or company needs to contend with when they look at me for money. To be included on my list, then, they'd better (A) prove they need it, (B) prove they're using it for substantially good reasons and not wasting it, and (C) preferably set things up so I can take a tax deduction for it.
I don't see anything wrong with looking at it that way -- if I had another $5 a paycheck to give away, it'd go to the people on my list, anyhow...
Contributions not yet tax-deductible. (Score:5, Informative)
From http://www.mozillafoundation.org/press/mozilla-fo
(emphasis added). Since the Mozilla Foundation is applying for 501(c)(3) status, contributions are not yet tax deductible. Which raises the interesting question, i.e., should 501(c)(3) status be granted? In particular, should contributions by AOL to the Mozilla Foundation be tax deductible when AOL will use any work performed by the "public benefit corporation" in its Netscape product? Is this a way for a for profit corporation to fund research in a tax-deductible way?
Perhaps a counter-argument is that given the license used for Mozilla (I forget which it is; it may be important), *anyone* could use the work... but could anyone use it in for-profit software?
I haven't thought this throught, but it might be an interesting issue.
Re:Contributions not yet tax-deductible. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're assuming there will be a Netscape product.
This is highly doubtful in light of today's events.
Re:Contributions not yet tax-deductible. (Score:4, Informative)
I am glad its there.
Let's look at V.3:
What Gerv was saying (I think) is that AOL is using v.3 to relicence _to_ the Mozilla Foundation any reamaining NPL code under the MPL so that going forward all of Mozilla will be MPL/GPL/LGPL (no NPL) so that if AOL uses future versions of these files they will have no NPL special rights. They will be able to use code from the Mozilla Foundation under the terms of any of the MPL, GPL or LGPL.
I don't deal much with licensing issues (not nearly as much as Gerv) so I could be totally wrong but I think that's what he was trying to say.
--Asa
To donate or not to donate... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is absolutely no reason for you to donate. Nobody is forcing you to do so. On the other hand, if everybody applies the same philosophy, most OSS projects will depend solely on the goodwill and the mutable live conditions of their developers Or on companies looking for a cheaper/better software development process).
This is very different from donnating to
Time for some advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, there is a lot of frustration out there and the Mozilla people really need to get the word out that they have a competitive product. Place some ads in the weekly magazines, some big newspapers, and get a buzz going. Open up a Paypal account that we can donate to so Mozilla can get an ad in the New York Times.
Re:Time for some advertising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time for some advertising (Score:3, Informative)
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. It's a mailing list for discussing and co-ordinating marketing, not one for marketing on
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
free advertising! (Score:3)
I'm not so artistically minded, so I don't want to create it, but I'll certainly display it!
Re:free advertising! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not so artistically minded, so I don't want to create it, but I'll certainly display it!
We will be ramping up our marketing efforts over the coming months. In the mean time you could always use plain text and link to http://www.mozilla.org/releases
--Asa
The *perfect* advertising solution (Score:4, Funny)
Mozilla needs to start advertising - in popup ads. What better way to get your message across? "Hate pop-up ads like this one? Do you know there is a browser out there that allows you to block pop-up ads? It is called Mozilla, and we have a lot of other great features too. Mozilla is absolutely free! Try it out today. [url to mozilla.org]"
Yeah, it is a little like spammers sending you an email on how to stop spam, but I like the idea.
Not a clever move (Score:2, Insightful)
When Firebird reaches Moz's level of stability, THEN it might be wise to push it to new users. But Mozilla gives a better impression.
That sound you hear.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That sound you hear.. (Score:3, Funny)
$2M kiss-off (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say AOL wants to be rid of Mozilla. I wonder where this leaves Netscape? Is Netscape 7.1 the last browser release from this former browser company?
Re:$2M kiss-off (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone may have been clued in enough to know that doing so would generate immense ill-will. Besides, Mozilla is a viable product... just not one well suited to AOL/TW's core business (as you say).
Additionally the $2M can be written off for tax purposes. Small, but it doesn't hurt.
I guess the real question is how much funding has AOL given the Mozilla project over the past few years? Is $1M/year an improvement or a reduction in funding? And to be totally cynical -- even if it is an improvement, remember it's only for two years. Will they be able to make up the money if AOL doesn't continue funding after that time period is up?
Honestly, I'd pretty much read this as AOL kicking the project out as well, but unless the above question is answered I can't be sure of that.
Re:$2M kiss-off (Score:3, Insightful)
> funding?
$1M is enough to pay about 8-10 mediocre (in the $50k range) salaries (after you factor in things like the taxes the employer has to pay, employee benefits, etc).
AOL was employing a lot more people than that working on Mozilla.
Mozdev? (Score:2)
Re:Mozdev? (Score:5, Informative)
mozdev.org is independent of mozilla.org and always has been, so they should not be affected by this announcement in any way (besides benefiting from any positive press Mozilla receives).
Note that mozdev.org has recently completed a very successful fundraising drive [mozdev.org].
Re:Mozdev? (Score:3, Informative)
A Service You Could Offer (Score:5, Insightful)
If the price were not too high, I imagine a lot of technology companies could impress their users with a branded web browser that's better than Internet Explorer.
"As a complimentary service to our customers, we offer them the SuperTechnologyCompany Web Browser which has features that prevent spam and popups..."
Re:A Service You Could Offer (Score:3, Interesting)
This will of c
I can see it now... (Score:2)
A benefit for Mozilla featuring Niel Young and U2.
-t
Diogenes, here yah go!! (Score:4, Insightful)
I liked that they said their money was going for salaries. This is refreshingly honest. Most press releases from organizations steer away from the fact that everybody needs a little $$ to survive.
This is better than trying to make us believe that first they save the whales, then go for profitability..
PayPal ?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:PayPal ?? (Score:5, Informative)
We'll get a PayPal (or similar) link up there as soon as possible. Don't spend the money meantime
Thanks for offering to donate!
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
Yeah, right ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firebird rules. Thunderbird rules. But they're software. I'll be giving my non-profit dollars to the local food bank, as usual.
And since non-profits are exempt from the Do Not Call list, does that mean I'll be getting phone spam from AOL?
What could we do with 2 million? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the mozilla foundantion would like to sponser the forthcoming KDE conference (eg. to discuss how we could make use of any reusable parts of their code base) I'm sure they'd be most welcome.
Rich.
What They Left Out (Score:3, Interesting)
, we will also promote the distribution and adoption of Mozilla applications and technologies. In addition, we will raise funds to ensure Mozilla's long-term survival
We will organize as a tax exempt charity to provide a nice tax writeof for AOL-TW, while continuing to further their corporate objectives against Microsoft.
To be fair, they do mention that they are seeking 501(c)(3) status at the bottom of the release.
Anybody else sense a trend? Open Source "charitable" orgs as a corporate tax shelter? Once again, you have to hand it to RMS--he was at the cutting edge on this. The FSF was perhaps the first Open Source nonprofit. Something like Mozilla.org will allow corporations to obtain the tax writeof without having to buy into the political stand of the Free Software movement.
It's a win-win for corporations. They can place the unprofitable portions of their business into the nonprofit. They can influence the nonprofits with their money. They can effectively employee people for less than minimum wage.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes legislators to wake up to this, and call for charitable org reform. I wager that at least one generation (20 years) will pass and get fat off these exemptions before anything happens.
Next stop, Spin City! (Score:3, Funny)
What an enthusiastic way of saying "we all just got fired."
Or to put it in context, maybe they all got tshirts saying:
What grand news... :-(
To whoever submitted ex-mozilla (Score:3, Funny)
So this is the endgame of AOL vs MS (Score:3, Interesting)
(Funny how the courts tell MS to unbundle it from the os.. so MS goes and gets it bundled into what people consider their pc's os on a huge # of pc's)
Wonder if AOL would warm up to Mozilla if the states sued AOL to unbundle a browser with their software and give people a choice of what to use.
Since netscape is no longer a viable alternative I can only hope that Mozilla and to a lesser degree Opera become a prevalent browser across all forms of operating systems.
However there is still the problem to be fixed where 90% of the webpages out there are IE compatible on a first basis and all other browsers come in second for support.
Course Linux Gaming Warcry [warcry.com] I busted my butt to the bone to get it to works across Moz,Opera, and IE. And I'm just a flunky html geek
Re:the big mo (Score:2)
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/ [mozilla.org]
Re:the big mo (Score:5, Informative)
the event handling code probably needs a good overhaul. see my bug for more info
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21
particularly this comment by a sun engineer
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211
the code in my bug can demonstrate it -- just download and run the class/html file and click ok to corrupt your event Q/stack. may crash the browser or may just hang it.
Re:the big mo (Score:3, Interesting)
The only time I've seen Mozilla have such a footprint is when I've been running memory stress-tests.
Are you sure you're not just adding up the memory of all the threads (which _share_ all that memory)? There are typically 8-10 threads, and 40-50MB sounds about right for memory usage during heavy browsing.
Re:Does this mean AOL stopped supporting Moz? (Score:2)
The Mozilla Foundation will also promote the distribution and adoption of our flagship applications based on that code. AOL, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, and other companies will continue to support Mozilla through the Foundation.
Re:project fork or just a move? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The King is dead (Score:3, Interesting)
Moz better than Safari at the moment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Moz better than Safari at the moment (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, Mac IE isn't any better. Usually, it's worse. But Safari is truly amazing in its efficiency and quality. It sure would be nice if you could view PDF inside
Re:That's nice... (Score:2)
Re:What about Apache? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:AOL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A qustion: why should I use Firebird . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Because we didn't have image rights to the green dino.
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Very much not. Up to this point, mozilla.org was not a legal entity.
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)