Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Mozilla & Google behind the scenes payola

[Paul M Foster <paulf@quillandmouse.com>]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:14:26PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:05:34PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:52:10PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.scroogle.org/gscrape.html#ffox
> > > 
> > > Just wondering if anyone had heard of this. Although, if true, it
> > > certainly doesn't surprise me with todays corporate ethics as they are.
> > > Just a bad mark on Mozilla.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. Google pays Mozilla to 
> > make Google the default search engine for Firefox. Mozilla could have 
> > made it Yahoo or someone else, but Google paid them and that's bad? This 
> > seems the same to me as Ford offering a television show free cars so 
> > that whenever you see a car in the show, it's a Ford. This is as old as 
> > advertising itself.
> > 

<snip>

> 
> Even "IF" only one of those allegations are true, I'm disappointed in
> Mozilla's choices. They were, until a few days ago, "non-profit". Google
> may be the best general purpose search engine out there right now, but
> "IF" Mozilla made it the default for cash, I have a problem with that. If
> Mozilla knows that a Google search deposits cookies from sites never
> visited, I have a problem with that. 

IANAL, and I'm not privvy to all the laws pertaining to non-profits, but 
I think that what really defines a non-profit is that no single person 
or group "profits" from the entity. And I think that non-profits 
routinely gain funds from investments in other entities. I'm not sure, 
but I think this is the case.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list