Introducing the Mozilla Manifesto

41 views
Skip to first unread message

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 5:04:24 PM1/17/07
to

I feel very strongly that the Mozilla project is about more than simply
producing new versions of Firefox. Firefox is important, of course, and
our major focus right now. However, Firefox is also important to
achieving a boarder goal, and I believe it’s important for the project
to articulate that goal.

With the help of a number of Module Owners and other project leadership,
I have created a draft document called the Mozilla Manifesto. The
Manifesto sets out a vision of the Internet as a piece of infrastructure
that is open, accessible and enriches the lives of individual human
beings. It includes a pledge from the Mozilla Foundation about taking
action in support of the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto. It extends
an invitation to others to join us, either by working directly with the
Foundation or through other activities that support the Mozilla Manifesto.

My hope is that the Manifesto does the following:

1) articulates a vision for the Internet that Mozilla participants want
the Mozilla Foundation to pursue
2) speaks to people whether or not they have a technical background
3) makes Mozilla contributors proud of what we’re doing and motivates us
to continue
4) provides a framework for other people to advance this vision of the
Internet.

The Mozilla Manifesto has been reviewed and vetted by an initial group
of core contributors. I hope to get input from more Mozilla
contributors. I am posting the current draft of Mozilla Manifesto to
this newsgroup in a subsequent message for review and comment. If you
have the time and interest, I invite you to review this draft of the
Manifesto and provide input through this newsgroup. I know feedback is
needed for the type of questions below; and of course you might think of
other topics where you have feedback.


-- Does the Mozilla Manifesto meet the goals stated above?
-- Would you be comfortable with / proud of / distressed by the Mozilla
Manifesto as a formal statement bearing the Mozilla name?
-- Would you be pleased to see the Mozilla Foundation pledge to support
the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto?

Assuming the answers to these are positive, I’m also hoping for input on
the questions of:

-- Should there be a “call to action” for others? Right now the Mozilla
Foundation makes a pledge and invites others to participate. Should
there be more?
-- What sort of Call to Action would make sense?

Please let me know what you think.

Mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 5:16:51 PM1/17/07
to
Here’s the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
request in the previous message.

Mitchell

++


THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO


INTRODUCTION

The Internet is becoming an increasingly important part of our lives.

The Mozilla project is a global community of people who believe that
openness, innovation and opportunity are key to the continued health of
the Internet. We have worked together since 1998 to ensure that the
Internet is developed in a way that benefits everyone. We use an open,
community-based approach to create open source software and communities
of people involved in making the Internet experience better for all of us.

The Mozilla project is best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox web
browser. Our community is delivering world class results using our open
style and our vision of the Internet as a public resource.

As a result of these efforts, we have distilled a set of principles that
we believe are critical for the Internet to continue to benefit both the
public good and the commercial aspects of life. We set out these
principles in the Mozilla Internet Manifesto presented below.

These principles will not come to life on their own. People are needed
to make the Internet open and participatory -- people acting as
individuals, working together in groups, and leading others. The Mozilla
Foundation is committed to advancing the principles set out in the
Mozilla Manifesto. We invite others to join us and make the Internet an
ever better place for all of us.


PRINCIPLES

1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life -- a key component in
education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and
society as a whole.
2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and
accessible.
3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
4. Individuals’ security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be
treated as optional.
5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on
the Internet.
6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon
technological interoperability, innovation and decentralized
participation worldwide.
7. Free and open source software promotes the development of the
Internet as a public resource.
8. Transparent community-based development processes promote
participation, accountability, and trust.
9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many
benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical.
10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an
important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.


ADVANCING THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO

There are many different ways of supporting the principles of the
Mozilla Manifesto. People and organizations can support the Manifesto
through activities that match their expertise and interests. For
individuals, one very effective way to support the Manifesto is to use
Mozilla Firefox and other open source products that embody the
principles of the Manifesto.


MOZILLA FOUNDATION PLEDGE

The Mozilla Foundation pledges to support the Mozilla Internet Manifesto
in its activities. Specifically, we will:

• build and enable open-source technologies and communities that support
the Manifesto’s principles
• build and deliver great consumer products that support the Manifesto’s
principles
• use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property, infrastructure, funds
and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform
• promote models for creating economic value for the public benefit
• promote the Mozilla Manifesto principles in public discourse and
within the Internet industry

Some Foundation activities – in particular the creation, delivery and
adoption of consumer products -- are conducted primarily through the
Mozilla Foundation’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.

INVITATION

The Mozilla Foundation invites all others who support the principles of
the Mozilla Internet Manifesto to join with us, and to find new ways to
make these principles a greater part of our lives.


(v0.8.2)

Cédric Corazza

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 5:19:52 PM1/17/07
to
Hi,

I think you forgot to mention the link to the manifesto Mitchell ;-) ,

Regards

Mike Shaver

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 5:31:43 PM1/17/07
to Cédric Corazza, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 1/17/07, Cédric Corazza <cedric....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think you forgot to mention the link to the manifesto Mitchell ;-) ,

On 1/17/07, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I am posting the current draft of Mozilla Manifesto to
> this newsgroup in a subsequent message for review and comment.

Mike

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 5:32:51 PM1/17/07
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
You should see the actual Manifesto draft in this thread now. At least
i do :-)

mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 5:32:51 PM1/17/07
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
You should see the actual Manifesto draft in this thread now. At least
i do :-)

mitchell

Rimas Kudelis

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 6:16:21 PM1/17/07
to
Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Here’s the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
> request in the previous message.

I'd suggest to emphasize Open Standards, not Open Source Software, as
those standards act much more as a key, than OSS. OSS is a great
thing, but I think its affection on the Internet is quite indirect.
Open Standards are much more crucial here.

My 2¢.

RQ

Cédric Corazza

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 6:29:52 PM1/17/07
to
Mitchell Baker a écrit :

> THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO
>
> INTRODUCTION
[...]


> community-based approach to create open source software and communities
> of people involved in making the Internet experience better for all of us.

It's a detail, but maybe replacing "open-source" with "libre software"
or "free software" or "open source/free(or libre) software" will be more
accurate as you can open your source code but can prevent to modify it
for instance; that's not the case of the Mozilla project. (I'm also a
localizer of the gnu.org site ;) )
(same for 'open-source' in all the Manifesto).

Regards

Zak Greant

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 6:52:17 PM1/17/07
to
Greetings All,

As people express opinions on the manifesto, I will be capturing each
different suggestion, comment and concern in the Mozilla bugzilla.

To review the list of open issues, visit
http://zak.greant.com/manifesto-feedback

--
Cheers!
Zak Greant
Mozilla Foundation Ombudslizard

Ken Saunders

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 7:39:42 PM1/17/07
to
Does the Mozilla Manifesto meet the goals stated above?

Yes, it's very easy to comprehend for persons of all
Internet experience levels, and it clearly demonstrates that the
Mozilla Foundation's principles are solid ones and they're
inviting to others who are not currently a contributor.


-- Would you be comfortable with / proud of / distressed by the Mozilla
Manifesto as a formal statement bearing the Mozilla name?

Proud of, It supports the same values that I believe in and it
introduces me
to new ones. Mozilla never puts its name on anything if it were not the

best of whatever it may be. It would look great in the media also. ;)

-- Would you be pleased to see the Mozilla Foundation pledge to support
the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto?

I think that Mozilla always has pledged to support the standards
outlined in the document.

Assuming the answers to these are positive, I'm also hoping for input
on
the questions of:

-- Should there be a "call to action" for others? Right now the
Mozilla
Foundation makes a pledge and invites others to participate. Should
there be more?

I'm not aware of how Mozilla invites others in so it's hard to
answer.

Will I be quizzed on this. :)
Ken

Ian Hayward - Glaxstar

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 7:45:12 PM1/17/07
to
I think it meets the goals as it is now Mitchell. Especially in terms
of talking non-technical about the importance from a human perspective,
that the web as a public resource is maintained.

I think maybe a simple and easy call to action that could make sense
,would be to ask both individuals and corporate entities to demonstrate
their support of the Mozilla Manefesto by linking to it in order to
help raise awareness of its existence and in doing so, pledging their
alignment to its principles.

Zak Greant

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 7:59:10 PM1/17/07
to
I have set up a page on the Mozilla wiki at
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla-Manifesto to act as a clearing house
for these discussions.

Marcio

unread,
Jan 17, 2007, 8:50:53 PM1/17/07
to Mitchell Baker

I am not sure on the missing piece yet, and my feeling is that it has to
do with an individual's response in the system ( referred as content in
this note ). This note may be related to goal items 1,2,4 in [
introducing the Mozilla Manifesto ].

From the principles scenario it's not clear how _content_ relates to
the software entity, the Internet medium, and/or the individual entity.
It's clear that the Internet and software as being open, but I would
also put a word on our support to the information/content part.

We probably don't want to be too strict in the text in favor to open
content because it would impact the balance between commercial and
public today. But I think it is possible to be stronger on our
endorsement to Open processes, and possibly processes to promote greater
interoperability with information in general.

For example item 6) states the technological interoperability. Maybe if
we could expand this item to be a bit more precise on the type of Open
aspect that can promote better interoperability for the Internet and its
individuals and systems.

/\/\

Marco Casteleijn

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 3:27:32 AM1/18/07
to
I am with Ken here. I share the opinions stated here and do feel that we
as human kind have a responsibility to the right thing for the planet.

In daily life, and as such, also in the creation of a new sphere (if you
like) of our extended planet. Information flow should be free, for all,
and bring us forward as such...

I am also with Ken that I do not like quizzes ;o)

One question here (other than adding my support to this):

- [IF/HOW] will the Manifesto be "signed" by individuals, companies
Mozilla collaborators as an outward statement?

Marco

Andrew Schultz

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 4:03:51 AM1/18/07
to
Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Here’s the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
> request in the previous message.

Looks great overall. Comments that follow mostly refer to the writing
rather than the content. I blame my former adviser for this.

> The Mozilla project is best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox web
> browser. Our community is delivering world class results using our open
> style and our vision of the Internet as a public resource.

I got a bit lost on this paragraph. What is its purpose in life? "We
make fantastic software"? How is that related to the Manifesto? I was
also unsure whether "world class results" referred to Firefox
specifically or the broad range of things the project creates. I
suspect the latter was intended, but would probably interpret it to mean
the former if I didn't know any better.

> ADVANCING THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO
>
> There are many different ways of supporting the principles of the
> Mozilla Manifesto. People and organizations can support the Manifesto
> through activities that match their expertise and interests. For
> individuals, one very effective way to support the Manifesto is to use
> Mozilla Firefox and other open source products that embody the
> principles of the Manifesto.

This needs something more... The first 2 sentences seem sufficiently
vague as to be not helpful. For instance, if I like carpentry and am
good at it, does that support the Mozilla Manifesto (it would match my
expertise and interest)? Is the point that a whole array of activities
can (and do) advance the Manifesto's principles? If so, then saying
that more directly along with a couple concrete examples would help out
a lot.

And then the paragraph gets real specific. But how does using Mozilla
Firefox (and open source in general) support the Manifesto? Firefox
specifically ties in strongly with #4 and #5 with a good dose of #7.
And how does just using open source software in general help? This is a
tough one and the answer seems mostly outside the scope of this document
(marketshare, etc).

But who is this targeting? If we're trying to get Joe User to advance
the Manifesto, I think we probably lost him at "Open Source". You
mentioned that you hope the document speaks to people who don't have a
technical background. But "Open Source" doesn't really mean much to
non-technical people and this document does not define it or state
how/why it's good. Without that, a non-technical reader would come away
knowing that we /have/ a Manifesto and that we think what we're doing
benefits everyone else. But I don't see them motivated to advance the
Manifesto.

So... if the paragraph doesn't have to try to motivate non-technical
people, the paragraph can touch on activities people can do that would
have greater impact than just using Firefox (contributing, evangelism,
collaboration, extensions).

--
Andrew Schultz
ajsc...@verizon.net
http://www.sens.buffalo.edu/~ajs42/

Gus Richter

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 9:03:38 AM1/18/07
to
Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Here’s the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
> request in the previous message.
>
> Mitchell
>

A fine beginning. There is a part that, to me, is glaringly missing. It
goes something like this:


We will at all times respond to the general users' needs and wants. The
web is the domain of the general user who greatly outnumbers Mozilla
Fooundation/Corporation members and those contributing to the effort. We
will remember at all times that it is the user who determines the
success and popularity of a product. We will not simply act in our
self-serving needs, but will listen, through surveys, bugzilla, etc., in
order to determine those needs and wants. If those needs and wants
should conflict with self-serving interests, the general users' needs
and wants will take precedence.

--
Gus

Kevin Brosnan

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 12:01:58 PM1/18/07
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
I suggest providing links or end notes to clarify unfamiliar or
complex terms. Using the simple wikipedia (1) or creating a Mozilla
definition for the technical term. While the goal is to have a
document that is readable by non-technical people some words
unavoidable such as open source.

(1) http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Kevin Brosnan

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 1:32:49 PM1/18/07
to Rimas Kudelis
Open standards have come up a couple of times. I didn't specify them
directly, figuring they are a part of "technical interoperability" in
principle 6.

As part of this discussion we can figure out how much specificity to add
to the principles, or whether we should have a set of annotations (as we
did with the early Mozilla Public License, and as the FSF is doing with
GPL comments) that state more fully what we think the principles require
at this moment in time, or whether there is some other mechanism that
would be helpful.

Or maybe principle 7 should say open standards specifically . ...
mulling this over.

mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 1:33:08 PM1/18/07
to
Open standards have come up a couple of times. I didn't specify them
directly, figuring they are a part of "technical interoperability" in
principle 6.

As part of this discussion we can figure out how much specificity to add
to the principles, or whether we should have a set of annotations (as we
did with the early Mozilla Public License, and as the FSF is doing with
GPL comments) that state more fully what we think the principles require
at this moment in time, or whether there is some other mechanism that
would be helpful.

Or maybe principle 7 should say open standards specifically . ...
mulling this over.

mitchell

Ben Bucksch

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 2:37:20 PM1/18/07
to

(quotes reordered, so that clearest changes are first, viewpoints last)

Mitchell Baker wrote:
> The Mozilla project is a global community of people who believe that
> openness, innovation and opportunity are key to the continued health
> of the Internet.

Suggestion: insert "standards, choice" after "openness".

> For individuals, one very effective way to support the Manifesto is to
> use Mozilla Firefox and other open source products that embody the
> principles of the Manifesto.

... "and avoid services that lock into the use of a certain software"

> Some Foundation activities – in particular the creation, delivery and
> adoption of consumer products -- are conducted primarily through the
> Mozilla Foundation’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.

This is an internal organizational structure, I think originally due to
US tax laws, I would not put that into the manifesto. I don't see an
inherent reason to put consumer products in Mozilla Corporation. What
happens when some Mozilla project members want to create an end-user
product? Would that be part of Mozilla Corporation's scope? Could it be
sponsored by Mozilla Foundation?


Standards:

There is something that I would like to see added in the manifesto: That
we stop using services ad-hoc, creating clients for what's there, but
instead actively move to a world that TBL drew, where services have
well-defined protocols, industry-wide, and they can be mixed and
combined, instead of the website/webapp world we have now. We write
clients for these standard protocols. We avoid using proprietary
protocols (e.g. to eBay, Flicker or Google Maps), even if they are open,
but invent open, *standard* protocols or URL schemes and try to push
vendors and services to use these, or if not possible, create workarounds.

The broader idea here, which I would also like to see expressed
explicitly, is that the goal of the Mozilla project is to create
software which is the best for its purpose, but not the *only* one. For
example, I like the fact that there's Opera and Konqueror/Safari, it
gives users more choice and stops us from going astray too far.
Similarly, there should be a generic photo upload/download protocol, so
that e.g. my GTK/KDE digicam management software can use it as well, or
the photo feature of my TomTom navigation device can download them. If
there's no such protocol, we need to push for it, actively go to
services providers and pursue them with our weight. If found impossible
for some companies, we should create converters to the standard
protocol, e.g. in XSLT.

I think that completely fits with "openness, choice and innovation", in
fact that's the goal. It's just making explicit that it also means us
actively allowing and helping competition to ourselves (as long as that
competition is also in line with the manifesto).

Concretely, I'd suggest as wording:

"Promoting openness and innovation also means that we welcome
competition to our own software by others, and we will actively work
towards making that possible and feasible, as long as the competition is
in line with the manifesto, e.g. by using standards, creating them in an
open way where they don't exist, and promoting them towards service
providers. This allows a wide diversity of interoperable clients and
services to bloom, fitting very different needs and circumstances, not
all of which can be covered by the Mozilla project."

I already see the Mozilla project doing that, in some way, e.g.
npruntime, WHAT WG etc..

> • use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property, infrastructure, funds
> and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform

("intellectual property" = copyright, patent, trademark, and similar law)

Please avoid the term "intellectual property". The term and the whole
concept was invented and is promoted by those people who want to achieve
the exact opposite of the manifesto goals. The idea of "property" is
"it's mine, and you may only use it when I decree to allow it". That
doesn't really fit with ideas/"intellectual". Science wouldn't have
gotten where we are by keeping things to ourselves. Thus, the whole
notion is a red flag for me. I hear the term mainly from those who
charge universities 100 Eur per science magazine issue, put DRM on it,
and disallow libraries to provide remote access to it. Or those who use
it to prevent others to use certain protocols or devices.

I personally don't completely agree, but the base idea of RMS was to
completely get rid of copyright, and the GPL was specifically crafted to
prevent copyright, by copyright. Thus, I can imagine that the term would
upset the Free Software / FSF crowd.

BTW: Mozilla Foundation does not hold the copyright of the Mozilla
source anyways.

I *do* like that you specifically mention in brackets which assets you
want to use, particularly including reputation. This implies that
Mozilla Foundation raises its voice when there are external threats to
the manifesto, e.g. the W3C/IETF RAND patent question.

> 1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life -- a key component
> in education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment
> and society as a whole.

I think that "integral" promotes too much of a lifestyle.

The Internet being an integral part of one's life has a serious
downside: the increased dependency on others and esp.
services/companies/technologies. You start to notice this when for
example the government starts monitoring all Internet activity and you
have no way to escape it anymore.
In other words, reliance on the Internet reduces individual independence.

I do want and need to have tools which *allow* me to use the Internet.
In a way that is as independent as possible (as you specify later on).
But I do not want the Internet as part of my life being *promoted*. In
other words, I'd like the reliance on Internet services and the network
communication to be *minimized*, not extended. This is something
embedded - often unsaid - on all levels, from principles like
decentralism to Internet protocols up to user interface.

For example, I don't want to go to Flicker to see my own photos (or
those which my mother sent me via mail). And if I do decide to publish
my photos to the world, I want to use an open standard protocol that
works with any such service, not to have to use a certain client (even
if it's an open-source Firefox extension).

--
When responding via mail, please remove the ".news" from the email address.

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 3:07:31 PM1/18/07
to
Hi Cedric

Thanks for the suggestion.

Principle 7 includes both open source and free software, to be sure to
be inclusive. I think this is the only reference to differences in
licensing. I added it here because the principles are the key element.

In general, I'm extremely reluctant to add the complexities of
licensing (preventing private forks through GPL or allowing through
Apache, or MPL middle ground) to creep into this document. For
principle 7, is there a general preference to use "libre" instead of
"free" for the english version of the document?


mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 3:09:39 PM1/18/07
to
No quizzes!
And many thanks for the precise feedback.

mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 3:11:15 PM1/18/07
to
Ian

The linking idea is very interesting; I like it a lot.
Anyone else have the same reaction?

mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 3:13:21 PM1/18/07
to
Zak Greant wrote:
> I have set up a page on the Mozilla wiki at
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla-Manifesto to act as a clearing house
> for these discussions.

Thanks Zak, this is great

ml

Ben Bucksch

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 4:05:12 PM1/18/07
to
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> actively move to a world that TBL drew, where services have
> well-defined protocols, industry-wide, and they can be mixed and combined

Reference: Tim Berners-Lee, Semantic Web
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web
I mean the idea, not RDF, I'd rather use XML, but only with standard
DTDs/schemas, for now.

> For example, I like the fact that there's Opera and Konqueror/Safari,
> it gives users more choice and stops us from going astray too far.

It just came to me: It's also helping us, we're also stealing ideas from
them. E.g. the tabs, which are now a major reason for users to switch to
Firefox, were invented by NeoPlanet (90's, based on MSIE engine), then
went on to Opera -> MultiZilla -> Firefox -> MSIE7. Innovation
pacman-ing its way :)

Robert Sayre

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 4:45:08 PM1/18/07
to Mitchell Baker
Mitchell Baker wrote:
>
> Or maybe principle 7 should say open standards specifically . ...
> mulling this over.

I don't think it's a good idea to use the term "open standards". The
term has been abused to the point it now carries no information.

I'd also like to echo Ben Bucksch's opinion on the term "Intellectual
Property".

RMS has this to say: :)
>
> Copyright law exists. Patent law exists. They have almost nothing in
> common in terms of the requirements that they put on the public.
> Trademark law also exists. It has nothing in common with copyright
> law or patent law about what it requires of the public. So, the idea
> that there is some general thing which these are instances of already
> gets people so confused that they cannot understand these issues.
> There is no such thing. These are three separate unrelated issues,
> and any attempt to generalise about them guarantees confusion.

<http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/torino-rms-transcript.en.html#note-on-ip>

- Rob

David Ascher

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 4:49:46 PM1/18/07
to Mitchell Baker
Mitchell Baker wrote:

> For
> principle 7, is there a general preference to use "libre" instead of
> "free" for the english version of the document?

I think that the requirement that the language used be accessible to the
broadest public possible would make that impractical. That word, as
useful a concept as it is, is not part of Standard English yet.

--david

Cédric Corazza

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 5:14:23 PM1/18/07
to
Mitchell Baker a écrit :
> Hi Cedric

Hi Mitchell,


>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Principle 7 includes both open source and free software, to be sure to
> be inclusive. I think this is the only reference to differences in
> licensing. I added it here because the principles are the key element.

ok


>
> In general, I'm extremely reluctant to add the complexities of
> licensing (preventing private forks through GPL or allowing through
> Apache, or MPL middle ground) to creep into this document.

Agreed. That licensing matters are complex and confusing.


> For
> principle 7, is there a general preference to use "libre" instead of
> "free" for the english version of the document?

Concerning the word choice, I remember RMS recommended to use 'libre' to
remove the ambiguity of the word 'free' (free of charge or free as in
freedom), especially for people who don't know what FOSS are or
according to the context. I only remember that because of a translation
I did for the gnu.org site that mentionned that (sorry, I can't remember
the address) and 'libre' is the same word as in French. But I didn't see
'libre software' anywhere else than on gnu.org. I guess that English
native speakers are better skilled to choose the right word here.
However, concerning the principle 7, as open source is also mentionned,
this removes the ambiguity.
Assuming that the 'principles section' is the key part of the Manifesto,
my previous post is therefore irrelevant.

It just came to my mind : I didn't see the motto/purpose of the MoFo in
the Manifesto "The mission of the Mozilla project is to preserve choice
and innovation on the Internet." Maybe it's not the exact wording, but
it represents the 'signature' of the MoFo in my mind.

Regards

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 5:39:45 PM1/18/07
to
Robert Sayre schrieb:

> Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>
>> Or maybe principle 7 should say open standards specifically . ...
>> mulling this over.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to use the term "open standards". The
> term has been abused to the point it now carries no information.

Well, same could be said of a broad range of terms, including "open
source", probably even "free software".


> RMS has this to say: :)
> >
>> Copyright law exists. Patent law exists. They have almost nothing in
>> common in terms of the requirements that they put on the public.
>> Trademark law also exists. It has nothing in common with copyright
>> law or patent law about what it requires of the public. So, the idea
>> that there is some general thing which these are instances of already
>> gets people so confused that they cannot understand these issues.
>> There is no such thing. These are three separate unrelated issues,
>> and any attempt to generalise about them guarantees confusion.
>
> <http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/torino-rms-transcript.en.html#note-on-ip>

Wow, I's pretty rare that I'm 100% with RMS but in this case he's seeing
something that really a very big community of people does not understand
(and e.g. the whole Debian vs. Mozilla conflict is IMHO based on the
misunderstandings RMS is talking of here).

Robert Kaiser

Ben Bucksch

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 6:35:00 PM1/18/07
to
Andrew Schultz wrote:
>> The Mozilla project is best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox
>> web browser. Our community is delivering world class results using
>> our open style and our vision of the Internet as a public resource.
>
> I got a bit lost on this paragraph. What is its purpose in life?

To remind the reader (he already knows) that we are not a bunch of
hippies promoting an 'alternative' lifestyle not relevant to commercial
daily life, but these rules allow very professional and successful
products. It puts a lot of weight behind the manifesto. It needs that,
because it's in contrast to a lot of current commercial life.

> The first 2 sentences seem sufficiently vague as to be not helpful.
> For instance, if I like carpentry and am good at it, does that support

> the Mozilla Manifesto (it would match my expertise and interest)? ...

> And then the paragraph gets real specific.

Yup, the whole doc feels too vague, and generally seems unfinished
(maybe that's the intent and Mitchell wants the finishing to happen in
collaboration, that's great).

I think it should be more concrete, without adding much length. As-is,
it is really much of a guide for day to day decisions.

Manifestos which are concrete also have the advantage of inspiring
people and creating a strong urge in people to take action, without
having to ask them specifically. They'll know what they can do best to
advance the goals.

Stu123123123

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 11:53:30 PM1/18/07
to
Just met with Zak and read the manifesto for feedback. I can't fault
it. It embodies what we are all about and what Mozilla should be about.
It gets ++ from me.

Stuart Guthrie
Polonious
www.polonious.com.au

On Jan 18, 9:16 am, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Here's the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
> request in the previous message.
>

> Mitchell
>
> ++
>
> THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> The Internet is becoming an increasingly important part of our lives.


>
> The Mozilla project is a global community of people who believe that
> openness, innovation and opportunity are key to the continued health of

> the Internet. We have worked together since 1998 to ensure that the
> Internet is developed in a way that benefits everyone. We use an open,


> community-based approach to create open source software and communities
> of people involved in making the Internet experience better for all of us.
>

> The Mozilla project is best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox web
> browser. Our community is delivering world class results using our open
> style and our vision of the Internet as a public resource.
>

> As a result of these efforts, we have distilled a set of principles that
> we believe are critical for the Internet to continue to benefit both the
> public good and the commercial aspects of life. We set out these
> principles in the Mozilla Internet Manifesto presented below.
>
> These principles will not come to life on their own. People are needed
> to make the Internet open and participatory -- people acting as
> individuals, working together in groups, and leading others. The Mozilla
> Foundation is committed to advancing the principles set out in the
> Mozilla Manifesto. We invite others to join us and make the Internet an
> ever better place for all of us.
>
> PRINCIPLES


>
> 1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life -- a key component in
> education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and
> society as a whole.

> 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and
> accessible.
> 3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
> 4. Individuals' security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be
> treated as optional.
> 5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on
> the Internet.
> 6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon
> technological interoperability, innovation and decentralized
> participation worldwide.
> 7. Free and open source software promotes the development of the


> Internet as a public resource.

> 8. Transparent community-based development processes promote
> participation, accountability, and trust.
> 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many
> benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical.
> 10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an
> important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.
>
> ADVANCING THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO
>
> There are many different ways of supporting the principles of the


> Mozilla Manifesto. People and organizations can support the Manifesto

> through activities that match their expertise and interests. For


> individuals, one very effective way to support the Manifesto is to use
> Mozilla Firefox and other open source products that embody the
> principles of the Manifesto.
>

> MOZILLA FOUNDATION PLEDGE
>
> The Mozilla Foundation pledges to support the Mozilla Internet Manifesto
> in its activities. Specifically, we will:
>
> · build and enable open-source technologies and communities that support
> the Manifesto's principles
> · build and deliver great consumer products that support the Manifesto's
> principles
> · use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property, infrastructure, funds


> and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform

> · promote models for creating economic value for the public benefit
> · promote the Mozilla Manifesto principles in public discourse and
> within the Internet industry
>
> Some Foundation activities - in particular the creation, delivery and


> adoption of consumer products -- are conducted primarily through the
> Mozilla Foundation's wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.
>

> INVITATION
>
> The Mozilla Foundation invites all others who support the principles of
> the Mozilla Internet Manifesto to join with us, and to find new ways to
> make these principles a greater part of our lives.
>
> (v0.8.2)

Nelson B

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 5:02:46 PM1/19/07
to
Mitchell Baker wrote:

> PRINCIPLES

> 4. Individuals’ security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be
> treated as optional.

Mitchell,

What does that principle mean, really?

What effect (if any) will it have on the FF and TB products, and the
decisions made for those products?

Does it merely mean that we'll continue to work to eliminate DOS and
Code execution vulnerabilities caused by stack overflows, etc.?
(which we surely will)

Does it mean that we'll stop letting users bypass all security error
dialogs with a single click?

Does it mean that security error dialogs will no longer have a default
action to override the security error?

Does it mean the moratorium against PSM (SSL) security UI changes and
fixes will finally be lifted?

--
Nelson B (SSL developer for mozilla since day 1)

raiph....@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 21, 2007, 4:10:10 AM1/21/07
to
I believe that, by thinking in terms of 10 individual principles
rather than the whole enchilada, and of reciprocity, with us first
doing something for others, the theoretical spreading potential
and impact of the Manifesto and its principles, individually and
collectively, goes way up.

For example, assuming that #8 (the transparency principle) is
considered compatible with open government initiatives,
SFX Canada visitors could be linked to the Canadian "open
government" petition drive of this site:
http://www.opengovernment.ca/

Then there's a significant chance that this website will
reciprocate in some fashion.

If you think this through, you'll see that it suggests subtle
changes in how you craft the principles.

love, raiph

raiph....@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 21, 2007, 4:15:07 AM1/21/07
to
I've long felt that Mozilla should adopt an "ethical marketing
principle" --
something like the 10 principles of the original draft Manifesto, but
specifically about marketing.

I welcome ideas about what that principle might look like.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I think it should at least cover how we deal with propaganda.

I use the term propaganda, with its negative connotations,
quite deliberately. Marketing material and processes tend to
spread half-truths at best, and Mozilla and its fans are not
exempt from this rule of thumb.

To be clear: I think it's OK for Mozilla to develop and spread
its own propaganda, and to encourage users to do so. But I'm
claiming there'll be a major payoff if this is done with the
following in mind.

Let me establish some terminology. Imagine that each piece of
propaganda, and Mozilla driven spreading of it, was categorized
as being on a spectrum:
o typical marketing (deliberately or negligently misleading)
o open marketing (not deliberately misleading)
o npov marketing (cf. wikipedia NPOV)

It's my thesis that, under certain conditions, open marketing
is more efficacious than typical marketing and, under yet
another set of conditions, npov is more efficacious than
open marketing. Furthermore, that conditions are such that
it's in Mozilla's interests, and those of the whole earth, for
Mozilla to very deliberately shift some of its marketing energy
from open to npov.

I don't know how this npov bias might translate into a written
principle, but I think I know how we can execute on the general
idea to great effect.

raiph....@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 21, 2007, 4:37:59 AM1/21/07
to
Hey Mitchell,

Hth.

love, raiph


> THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO

In this email I only comment on the 10 principles.


> 1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life -- a key component in
education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and
society as a whole.

This sounds to me more like a working assumption than a rallying cry.
If I'm right, I think it belongs in the introduction. If not, maybe it
should
start "The Internet should be an integral". I don't like that, but
maybe
that's what you meant...


> 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and
accessible.

Them's fightin' words! I love this. :)


> 3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.

I'm not sure what you mean by this that isn't already
self-evident once principle #1 OR #2 applies (assuming
I correctly understand those earlier principles). Would
you give a couple very different examples of how this
statement would be of value as an explicit principle?


> 4. Individuals' security on the Internet is fundamental and
> cannot be treated as optional.

The "and cannot be treated as ..." part sounds to me like a
particularly crude partisan dig. (Apologies if it isn't.)

I assume you don't mean that there can be no security related
options in Firefox. And I assume you weren't addressing users --
ie you're not trying to put pressure on would-be zombie hosts.

Imo trust is going to become the dominant factor in security.
This suggests other principles such as transparency (#8) and
the "ethical marketing" I discuss in another email. Perhaps
these deep connections should be explicitly made as part of #4.
Note that doing so would explicitly confront Microsoft's Trustworthy
Computing initiative by tying trust of Mozilla's security in with
principles that will give MS the willies. :)


> 5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own
> experiences on the Internet.

Now what does that mean?

I know about add-ons, open source, licenses and so on,
but I suspect this just sounds like inscrutable partisan
bickering to average Joes.


> 6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource
> depends upon technological interoperability, innovation
> and decentralized participation worldwide.

If you say so. ;)

The "innovation" part particularly surprised me. I grok
that innovation has to occur if one is to stave off
balkanization and an eventual takeover by those who
would seek lock in (eg / ie Microsoft). But somehow
this still seems out of place. And isn't it covered by #9?

How about:


"The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource

depends upon shared protocols, technical evolution,
and grassroots participation worldwide."


> 7. Free and open source software promotes the development
of the Internet as a public resource.

(I assume that you mean "promotes development" in the sense
of "gives birth to" and "sustains" as well as "improves".)

Indeed. Take a bow TBL!


> 8. Transparent community-based Development processes promote
participation, accountability, and trust.

Not just Development. What about Governance? Marketing?

Maybe drop the Development and instead just say:
"Transparent community-based processes promote participation,
accountability, and trust."


> 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many
benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is
critical.

Nit: I don't like the implication that "commercial goals"
and "public benefit" are inherently tradeoffs.


> 10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an
important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.

Nit: doesn't commitment imply attention and time?


love, raiph

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 6:49:30 AM1/22/07
to
Ben Bucksch wrote:

> Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> Some Foundation activities – in particular the creation, delivery and
>> adoption of consumer products -- are conducted primarily through the
>> Mozilla Foundation’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.
>
> This is an internal organizational structure, I think originally due to
> US tax laws, I would not put that into the manifesto. I don't see an
> inherent reason to put consumer products in Mozilla Corporation. What
> happens when some Mozilla project members want to create an end-user
> product? Would that be part of Mozilla Corporation's scope? Could it be
> sponsored by Mozilla Foundation?

Ben does have a point. Camino is a consumer product. So it Seamonkey,
for a more technical sort of consumer.

"consumer products" -> "certain consumer products"?

> Please avoid the term "intellectual property".

While I'm here: I agree with all those who have made this point. I
suggest replacing it with "copyrights and trademarks". (As far as I am
aware, the Mozilla Foundation does not hold any patents.)

> BTW: Mozilla Foundation does not hold the copyright of the Mozilla
> source anyways.

It does hold the copyright to some; principally, that done by employees
of and contractors for the Mozilla Corporation.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 6:52:59 AM1/22/07
to
Nelson B wrote:
> What does that principle mean, really?

I think Mitchell should also comment, but for my part:

> Does it merely mean that we'll continue to work to eliminate DOS and
> Code execution vulnerabilities caused by stack overflows, etc.?
> (which we surely will)

Yes.

> Does it mean that we'll stop letting users bypass all security error
> dialogs with a single click?

I hope so :-)

> Does it mean that security error dialogs will no longer have a default
> action to override the security error?

I hope so :-)

> Does it mean the moratorium against PSM (SSL) security UI changes and
> fixes will finally be lifted?

I don't know if anyone has ever declared a moratorium as such; it's more
that trying to get any changes made is like wading through treacle.
Regardless, it's not good, and it needs to change. I know that Beltzner
and others have committed to spending time thinking about security UI
for Firefox 3, and I hope good things will come out of that process.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 6:58:20 AM1/22/07
to
raiph....@gmail.com wrote:
>> 1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life -- a key component in
> education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and
> society as a whole.
>
> This sounds to me more like a working assumption than a rallying cry.
> If I'm right, I think it belongs in the introduction. If not, maybe it
> should
> start "The Internet should be an integral". I don't like that, but
> maybe that's what you meant...

I think this is a very interesting observation. Point 1) is more an
initial assumption or predicate than a principle.

(Let's ignore for the moment that moving it to the intro would give us a
funny number of principles.)

>> 4. Individuals' security on the Internet is fundamental and
>> cannot be treated as optional.
>
> The "and cannot be treated as ..." part sounds to me like a
> particularly crude partisan dig. (Apologies if it isn't.)

It would be interesting to try and work out who we are thinking of who
treats a user's security as "optional", in the perjorative sense.

(Raiph made some other good points too; I commend his message to
everyone's attention.)

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 7:09:54 AM1/22/07
to
Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Here’s the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
> request in the previous message.

When making a Manifesto-like statement, it defines you both by what you
promote and also by who you disagree with. If you have a principle that
everyone accepts, it's not really worth stating. So I thought it might
be reasonable to try and make a list of people, companies or groups who
would oppose each manifesto point.

Additional help would be appreciated :-)

> 1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life -- a key component in
> education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and
> society as a whole.

Who would disagree with this? The Government of North Korea, perhaps.

As a statement "The Internet _is_ an integral part", then loads of third
world citizens who haven't even heard of the Internet would, should they
be asked, strongly disagree that it is an integral part of their lives.
But perhaps that's not what we mean.

> 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and
> accessible.

This might be disagreed with by those trying to build walled gardens of
content, use proprietary protocols or standards controlled by one
company, or (implicitly) by those who write non-accessible websites.

We could perhaps also count those governments that censor the Internet.

Accessible has several meanings here; perhaps that's intentional.

> 3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.

I can't think of anyone who would disagree with this.

> 4. Individuals’ security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be
> treated as optional.

I can't think of anyone who would disagree with this in words, apart
from criminals. Some may disagree with it by their actions, for example
by not making security enough of a priority in their internet software
development process. But actually I can't think of any browser vendor
who thinks that way either, Asa's comments about Opera notwithstanding.

> 5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on
> the Internet.

Disagreed with by those who would make the web usable by only one
client, or would use protocols or standards with insufficient support
for accessibility.

> 6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon
> technological interoperability, innovation and decentralized
> participation worldwide.

Disagreed with by those who would use proprietary protocols
(technological interoperability), and make the web just another
broadcast medium (decentralised participation). I don't know of anyone
who would disagree that the effectiveness of the Internet depends on
innovation. Over-zealously regulating governments, perhaps? The RIAA?

> 7. Free and open source software promotes the development of the
> Internet as a public resource.

Disagreed with by proprietary software companies.

> 8. Transparent community-based development processes promote
> participation, accountability, and trust.

Disagreed with by proprietary software companies.

"community-based process promote participation" seems rather tautologous
to me.

> 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many
> benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is
> critical.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, although I suspect
there'd be a lot of disagreement about where the balance lies - if, in
fact, it is a balance at all.

> 10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an
> important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.

I suppose anyone who works primarily towards other goals sort of
disagrees with this, although you can support a cause without
contributing to it. But again, like point 1, this seems more like a
starting assumption than a principle. Otherwise, why would we bother at all?

Hope that's useful. I'm away for a week starting in 5 minutes, so I look
forward to reading other people's thoughts on this approach to analysing
the manifesto when I return :-)

Gerv

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 8:34:03 AM1/22/07
to
Gervase Markham schrieb:

>> 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings
>> many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit
>> is critical.
>
> I don't think anyone would disagree with this, although I suspect
> there'd be a lot of disagreement about where the balance lies - if, in
> fact, it is a balance at all.

I actually think that there are people who believe in free software
almost religiously who would disagree that commercial involvement in the
internet is anything good at all. They even criticize that Mozilla has a
"for-profit" entity as everything "for-profit" may be destructive in
their minds...

OTOH, I don't think any commercial company would disagree here, it gives
them the right to use the internet for making their money (other
principles of the Manifesto may limit this again though).

I think it's good that we make it clear here that supporting the
Manifesto doesn't mean turning your back on commercial use/involvement
of the internet, as principles 7 and 8 and their own might suggest to
some people. It also means that supporters of the Manifesto don't get
counted to those who religiously disagree with any kind of commercial
software business, even though FOSS and community-based development are
promoted here. Such a balance is quite important in my eyes.

Robert Kaiser

Frank Hecker

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 1:59:28 PM1/22/07
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Mitchell Baker wrote:
<snip>

>> 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and
>> accessible.
>
> This might be disagreed with by those trying to build walled gardens of
> content, use proprietary protocols or standards controlled by one
> company, or (implicitly) by those who write non-accessible websites.
>
> We could perhaps also count those governments that censor the Internet.

I think you're already aware of this, but some people have interpreted
this principle as arguing against any government's attempts to regulate
Internet content in any way whatsoever. In this sense there are a lot of
"governments that censor the Internet" (directly or indirectly),
including the governments of several developed and democratic countries.

I don't think that that's really the intention behind the principle, or
behind the use of the word "accessible", but this point is worth noting IMO.

Frank

--
Frank Hecker
hec...@mozillafoundation.org

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 6:28:59 PM1/22/07
to
Thanks to everyone for the comments. I'm traveling this week and trying
to keep up after a full day. So I'm going to try but I may not be able
to respond in much detail for another week or so.

mitchell

Myk Melez

unread,
Jan 22, 2007, 8:03:08 PM1/22/07
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>> Some Foundation activities – in particular the creation, delivery and
>>> adoption of consumer products -- are conducted primarily through the
>>> Mozilla Foundation’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.
>>
>> This is an internal organizational structure, I think originally due
>> to US tax laws, I would not put that into the manifesto. I don't see
>> an inherent reason to put consumer products in Mozilla Corporation.
>> What happens when some Mozilla project members want to create an
>> end-user product? Would that be part of Mozilla Corporation's scope?
>> Could it be sponsored by Mozilla Foundation?
>
> Ben does have a point. Camino is a consumer product. So it Seamonkey,
> for a more technical sort of consumer.
>
> "consumer products" -> "certain consumer products"?

The word "certain" is implied by the absence of a more specific
qualifier, and including it will raise more questions than it answers.
Plus I doubt anyone will read "all Mozilla community-created consumer
products" into this statement.

But to answer Ben's question, IMHO an end-user product created by
Mozilla community members might indeed be within MoCo's scope and/or be
sponsored by MoFo. Whether it actually would be, however, depends on
the individual situation.

-myk

tni...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 24, 2007, 2:13:49 PM1/24/07
to
Mitchell,

I think we're getting some good feedback here, but shouldn't we promote
more the fact that there is a manifesto to discuss here. I mean that
not so many people visit this list/newsgroup, and maybe a blog post
about this on your blog (or mine) would help getting more members of
the community involved.

--Tristan

Marco Casteleijn

unread,
Jan 29, 2007, 3:32:31 AM1/29/07
to
tni...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mitchell,
>
> ... and maybe a blog post

> about this on your blog (or mine) would help getting more members of
> the community involved.
>
> --Tristan

Maybe the community at Spreadfirefox could be alerted of the wiki as
well? Are blogs (such as Asa and Ian) hit enough people? What is our
target (not just Firefox users I would say).

--Marco

Zak Greant

unread,
Jan 29, 2007, 6:19:09 AM1/29/07
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org

Perhaps I could suggest that we do these things:
* use the existing feedback to make a new draft
* release the new draft to this list and get another round of narrow
review
* after this, make a broader call for feedback on the new draft using
the standard mozilla community channels

Cheers!
--zak

p.s. I am behind on filing issues in Bugzilla (caught a flu while
visiting linux.conf.au), but am back on my feet and will catch up
shortly.

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Jan 30, 2007, 2:14:45 PM1/30/07
to
Hi Tristan

I will do a blog post shortly. I started here as a place where we would
have the best chance of getting comments from people actively involved
in regular Mozilla activities. When I do a blog post a set of people
will see this who are interetested in, or follow Mozilla, but are not
regular contributors. Those folks are important, but I wanted to give
active contributors a chance to get involved first.

There is still the question that active contributors may not know there
is activity in this newsgroup yet and so haven't subscribed. The blog
post will hopefully take care of that, and cause more to subscribe for
upcoming discussions.

mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 8:15:10 PM2/9/07
to

I’ve gone through all the comments, created some specific responses and
made a few edits. In this message I’ll comment generally on the
questions raised of specificity and blandness. Then I’ll respond
individually to a number of the messages – you can pick which ones you
want to read.

I’m ready to take the resulting edited version and post it for more
public review. I’m planning to call it an 0.9. I’ve done at least this
many drafts, it reflects a bunch of comments from this group and from
another 30 or so people who helped me get initial drafts ready, and I
think it’s pretty close to 1.0 status. I know that a bunch of us are
already using the drafts to help guide our action, and an 0.9
designation reflects that as well. And if it turns out that larger
public review results in a lot more drafts, we do have a history in
Mozilla of 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 and so on. I’m not eager to repeat that, but
we’ll do so if that’s what’s required. :- ). If I can find some
manageable way to post the changes here I’ll do so.

Then I’ll put the 0.9 verison on my blog, and point discussion here.

SPECIFICITY: There were a set of comments about the Manifeto not being
specific, either about the nature of the goal or the steps we might take
to get there. This was intentional on my part. With regard to
specificity of the goals, I’m not sure we know now. And I’m pretty sure
that interpretations will change. For example, what does security mean?
We know it means security vulnerabilities -- problems with code that
allow malicious actors too much room to move. More recently, “phishing”
has become a serious problem. It’s not a classic code vulnerability
though, so any definition of security that focused solely on code would
be too limited. There will undoubtedly be other types of problems that
will come up. So if we try to define “security” today it may be
incomplete and it will undoubtedly be incomplete in the future.

My hope is that the Manifesto sets a stake in the ground that the broad
topic of security is fundamental. Then a variety of groups can engage
in more detailed discussions of what this means for them and what steps
they will take. The Mozilla Foundation will clearly focus on products,
technology and user interaction. Other groups can set out other
specific tasks that contribute to improved Internet security.

The Manifesto is intended to set out the characteristics of an Internet
we would like to see. There is a lot of operational work to be done to
make this happen. We’ll want to describe this, but not in the Manifesto
itself.

There was also a couple of comments that the Manifesto is too bland,
that no one will disagree with it. I have my doubts about this,
especially as we flesh out what these principles mean in action. Maybe
another way of thinking about this is that the test will be not who nods
their head and says “yes, yes” but who is actually working to advance
the principles.

Mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 8:20:37 PM2/9/07
to
Marcio

Maybe we could say

"The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon

technological and data interoperability"

this uses "data" rather than content, but I think it captures the point.


mitchell


Marcio wrote:
>
> I am not sure on the missing piece yet, and my feeling is that it has to
> do with an individual's response in the system ( referred as content in
> this note ). This note may be related to goal items 1,2,4 in [
> introducing the Mozilla Manifesto ].
>
> From the principles scenario it's not clear how _content_ relates to
> the software entity, the Internet medium, and/or the individual entity.
> It's clear that the Internet and software as being open, but I would
> also put a word on our support to the information/content part.
>
> We probably don't want to be too strict in the text in favor to open
> content because it would impact the balance between commercial and
> public today. But I think it is possible to be stronger on our
> endorsement to Open processes, and possibly processes to promote greater
> interoperability with information in general.
>
> For example item 6) states the technological interoperability. Maybe if
> we could expand this item to be a bit more precise on the type of Open
> aspect that can promote better interoperability for the Internet and its
> individuals and systems.
>
> /\/\
>
>

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 8:22:50 PM2/9/07
to
Marco

see comment to Marcio re data in principle 6

on how people "sign on," I'm not sure. When I asked for input one
suggestion was for sites to note it or link to it. This seems very much
in keeping with Mozilla style and I like the idea. There are
undoubtedly other good ideas out there. Hopefully they’ll emerge as we
take the next steps.

mitchell

Marco Casteleijn wrote:
> I am with Ken here. I share the opinions stated here and do feel that we
> as human kind have a responsibility to the right thing for the planet.
>
> In daily life, and as such, also in the creation of a new sphere (if you
> like) of our extended planet. Information flow should be free, for all,
> and bring us forward as such...
>
> I am also with Ken that I do not like quizzes ;o)
>
> One question here (other than adding my support to this):
>
> - [IF/HOW] will the Manifesto be "signed" by individuals, companies
> Mozilla collaborators as an outward statement?
>
> Marco
>
>

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 8:31:46 PM2/9/07
to
Andrew

See comments inline

ml


Andrew Schultz wrote:
> Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> Here’s the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
>> request in the previous message.
>

> Looks great overall. Comments that follow mostly refer to the writing
> rather than the content. I blame my former adviser for this.


>
>> The Mozilla project is best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox web
>> browser. Our community is delivering world class results using our

>> open style and our vision of the Internet as a public resource.
>

> I got a bit lost on this paragraph. What is its purpose in life? "We
> make fantastic software"? How is that related to the Manifesto? I was
> also unsure whether "world class results" referred to Firefox
> specifically or the broad range of things the project creates. I
> suspect the latter was intended, but would probably interpret it to mean
> the former if I didn't know any better.

Paragraph now reads:

The Mozilla project is best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox web

browser. We are creating new types of collaborative activities and
delivering world class software using our open style and our vision of
the Internet as a public resource.


>
>> ADVANCING THE MOZILLA MANIFESTO
>>
>> There are many different ways of supporting the principles of the
>> Mozilla Manifesto. People and organizations can support the Manifesto
>> through activities that match their expertise and interests. For
>> individuals, one very effective way to support the Manifesto is to use
>> Mozilla Firefox and other open source products that embody the
>> principles of the Manifesto.
>

> This needs something more... The first 2 sentences seem sufficiently

> vague as to be not helpful. For instance, if I like carpentry and am
> good at it, does that support the Mozilla Manifesto (it would match my

> expertise and interest)? Is the point that a whole array of activities
> can (and do) advance the Manifesto's principles? If so, then saying
> that more directly along with a couple concrete examples would help out
> a lot.
>
Paragraph now reads:

There are many different ways of advancing the principles of the Mozilla
Manifesto. We welcome a broad range of activities, and anticipate the
same creativity that Mozilla participants have shown in other areas of
the project. For individuals not deeply involved in the Mozilla
project, one basic and very effective way to support the Manifesto is to
use Mozilla Firefox and other products that embody the principles of the
Manifesto.


> And then the paragraph gets real specific. But how does using Mozilla
> Firefox (and open source in general) support the Manifesto? Firefox
> specifically ties in strongly with #4 and #5 with a good dose of #7. And
> how does just using open source software in general help? This is a
> tough one and the answer seems mostly outside the scope of this document
> (marketshare, etc).

Yup, using Firefox strengthens the items you mention. And the number of
Firefox users gives the Mozilla voice, and thus the Manifesto weight.
The Manifesto has very high-level goals. What makes us grounded and
concrete and real are the technologies and products we build, and the
people who choose to use them.
>
> But who is this targeting? If we're trying to get Joe User to advance
> the Manifesto, I think we probably lost him at "Open Source". You
> mentioned that you hope the document speaks to people who don't have a
> technical background. But "Open Source" doesn't really mean much to
> non-technical people and this document does not define it or state
> how/why it's good. Without that, a non-technical reader would come away
> knowing that we /have/ a Manifesto and that we think what we're doing
> benefits everyone else. But I don't see them motivated to advance the
> Manifesto.
>
> So... if the paragraph doesn't have to try to motivate non-technical
> people, the paragraph can touch on activities people can do that would
> have greater impact than just using Firefox (contributing, evangelism,
> collaboration, extensions).
>
Well, I still hope non-technical people can respond to other parts of
the Manifesto even before they understand "open source."


Mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 8:33:08 PM2/9/07
to
Gus

The Foundation pledges to support the Mozilla Manifesto. Principles
3,4, 5 , 8 and 9 of the Manifesto are about keeping the experience for
individual people the fundamental tenant. So I think the high level
goal is covered.

I’d rather not go into specifics in this document, especially since I
hope the document speaks to people who care about these goals but aren’t
necessarily active in building software. I agree that stating clearly
that we are relevant and can promote great goals only to the degree that
people find our products meet their needs.

There is probably a great deal more the Mozillla Foundation can and
perhaps should say about how it views these goals and plans to advance
them. I think that’s for a different document.


mitchell

Gus Richter wrote:
> Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> Here’s the draft Mozilla Manifesto. Please see the goals and feedback
>> request in the previous message.
>>

>> Mitchell
>>
>
> A fine beginning. There is a part that, to me, is glaringly missing. It
> goes something like this:
>
>
> We will at all times respond to the general users' needs and wants. The
> web is the domain of the general user who greatly outnumbers Mozilla
> Fooundation/Corporation members and those contributing to the effort. We
> will remember at all times that it is the user who determines the
> success and popularity of a product. We will not simply act in our
> self-serving needs, but will listen, through surveys, bugzilla, etc., in
> order to determine those needs and wants. If those needs and wants
> should conflict with self-serving interests, the general users' needs
> and wants will take precedence.
>

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 9:02:33 PM2/9/07
to
Kevin

Nice idea. Now just need to figure out which words!

ml

Kevin Brosnan wrote:
> I suggest providing links or end notes to clarify unfamiliar or
> complex terms. Using the simple wikipedia (1) or creating a Mozilla
> definition for the technical term. While the goal is to have a
> document that is readable by non-technical people some words
> unavoidable such as open source.
>
> (1) http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Kevin Brosnan

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 9:11:03 PM2/9/07
to
Ben

comments inline

ml

Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> (quotes reordered, so that clearest changes are first, viewpoints last)


>
> Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> The Mozilla project is a global community of people who believe that
>> openness, innovation and opportunity are key to the continued health
>> of the Internet.
>

> Suggestion: insert "standards, choice" after "openness".
>


Agree that something about this should be in the Manifesto. wouldn't
put it here.


>> For individuals, one very effective way to support the Manifesto is to
>> use Mozilla Firefox and other open source products that embody the
>> principles of the Manifesto.
>

> ... "and avoid services that lock into the use of a certain software"

I suspect a bunch of people won't know what to make of this. I've
simplified the paragraph in response to this and an earlier comment.
posted the revised version in the earlier comment; it's here too:


There are many different ways of advancing the principles of the Mozilla
Manifesto. We welcome a broad range of activities, and anticipate the
same creativity that Mozilla participants have shown in other areas of
the project. For individuals not deeply involved in the Mozilla
project, one basic and very effective way to support the Manifesto is to
use Mozilla Firefox and other products that embody the principles of the
Manifesto.

>

>> Some Foundation activities – in particular the creation, delivery and
>> adoption of consumer products -- are conducted primarily through the
>> Mozilla Foundation’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.
>
> This is an internal organizational structure, I think originally due to
> US tax laws, I would not put that into the manifesto. I don't see an
> inherent reason to put consumer products in Mozilla Corporation. What
> happens when some Mozilla project members want to create an end-user
> product? Would that be part of Mozilla Corporation's scope? Could it be
> sponsored by Mozilla Foundation?

made a change to define what MoCo does currently. Left the reference in
because anyone following this will see things with a MoCo identity as well.
>
>
> Standards:
>
> There is something that I would like to see added in the manifesto: That
> we stop using services ad-hoc, creating clients for what's there, but
> instead actively move to a world that TBL drew, where services have
> well-defined protocols, industry-wide, and they can be mixed and
> combined, instead of the website/webapp world we have now. We write
> clients for these standard protocols. We avoid using proprietary
> protocols (e.g. to eBay, Flicker or Google Maps), even if they are open,
> but invent open, *standard* protocols or URL schemes and try to push
> vendors and services to use these, or if not possible, create workarounds.
>
> The broader idea here, which I would also like to see expressed
> explicitly, is that the goal of the Mozilla project is to create
> software which is the best for its purpose, but not the *only* one. For
> example, I like the fact that there's Opera and Konqueror/Safari, it
> gives users more choice and stops us from going astray too far.
> Similarly, there should be a generic photo upload/download protocol, so
> that e.g. my GTK/KDE digicam management software can use it as well, or
> the photo feature of my TomTom navigation device can download them. If
> there's no such protocol, we need to push for it, actively go to
> services providers and pursue them with our weight. If found impossible
> for some companies, we should create converters to the standard
> protocol, e.g. in XSLT.
>
> I think that completely fits with "openness, choice and innovation", in
> fact that's the goal. It's just making explicit that it also means us
> actively allowing and helping competition to ourselves (as long as that
> competition is also in line with the manifesto).
>
> Concretely, I'd suggest as wording:
>
> "Promoting openness and innovation also means that we welcome
> competition to our own software by others, and we will actively work
> towards making that possible and feasible, as long as the competition is
> in line with the manifesto, e.g. by using standards, creating them in an
> open way where they don't exist, and promoting them towards service
> providers. This allows a wide diversity of interoperable clients and
> services to bloom, fitting very different needs and circumstances, not
> all of which can be covered by the Mozilla project."

The Manifesto speaks of interoperability at all levels. I'd like to
leave things at this. Partly for brevity and partly because adding
conditions about what sort of competition we will and won't support is a
level of discussion that I think is worthwhile, but not as part of the
Manifesto itself.
>
> I already see the Mozilla project doing that, in some way, e.g.
> npruntime, WHAT WG etc..
>
>> • use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property, infrastructure, funds

>> and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform
>

> ("intellectual property" = copyright, patent, trademark, and similar law)

made a change like this
>
> Please avoid the term "intellectual property". The term and the whole
> concept was invented and is promoted by those people who want to achieve
> the exact opposite of the manifesto goals. The idea of "property" is
> "it's mine, and you may only use it when I decree to allow it". That
> doesn't really fit with ideas/"intellectual". Science wouldn't have
> gotten where we are by keeping things to ourselves. Thus, the whole
> notion is a red flag for me. I hear the term mainly from those who
> charge universities 100 Eur per science magazine issue, put DRM on it,
> and disallow libraries to provide remote access to it. Or those who use
> it to prevent others to use certain protocols or devices.
>
> I personally don't completely agree, but the base idea of RMS was to
> completely get rid of copyright, and the GPL was specifically crafted to
> prevent copyright, by copyright. Thus, I can imagine that the term would
> upset the Free Software / FSF crowd.


>
> BTW: Mozilla Foundation does not hold the copyright of the Mozilla
> source anyways.
>

> I *do* like that you specifically mention in brackets which assets you
> want to use, particularly including reputation. This implies that
> Mozilla Foundation raises its voice when there are external threats to
> the manifesto, e.g. the W3C/IETF RAND patent question.


>
>> 1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life -- a key component
>> in education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment
>> and society as a whole.
>

> I think that "integral" promotes too much of a lifestyle.
>
> The Internet being an integral part of one's life has a serious
> downside: the increased dependency on others and esp.
> services/companies/technologies. You start to notice this when for
> example the government starts monitoring all Internet activity and you
> have no way to escape it anymore.
> In other words, reliance on the Internet reduces individual independence.
>
> I do want and need to have tools which *allow* me to use the Internet.
> In a way that is as independent as possible (as you specify later on).
> But I do not want the Internet as part of my life being *promoted*. In
> other words, I'd like the reliance on Internet services and the network
> communication to be *minimized*, not extended. This is something
> embedded - often unsaid - on all levels, from principles like
> decentralism to Internet protocols up to user interface.
>
> For example, I don't want to go to Flicker to see my own photos (or
> those which my mother sent me via mail). And if I do decide to publish
> my photos to the world, I want to use an open standard protocol that
> works with any such service, not to have to use a certain client (even
> if it's an open-source Firefox extension).
>

I suspect there are a bunch of people who want their Internet experience
minimized and a bunch who want more. I’m tying to use the word “promote”
for the principles of the Manifesto. I do believe the Internet is
growing ever more integral to life. I suppose we could pull that out
and make it some sort of assertion, the classis “whereas” clause in an
old style contract. But I hope to avoid that level of complexity.

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 9:15:21 PM2/9/07
to


More concrete without adding length -- good luck!

Also, I disagree, or I might take the challenge. The Mozilla Foundation
and others who support the Manifesto need to be concrete about how they
will do so. But if the Manifesto is very concrete then it will only
apply to the things that *we* understand and the things we understand
*now.* Life with Mozilla has taught me that people will come up with
all sorts of good ideas that I never would have thought of. I want to
be sure to leave room for that.

mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 9:16:47 PM2/9/07
to
Nelson, the Manifesto itself won’t tell us what specific UI decisions
should be made in a product. Its goal is to make it clear that a
healthy internet is one where people enoy an acceptable standard of
security. How we get to that standard, how we balance security vs.
usability and how that standard changes over time are things we’ll need
to keep asking all the time.

ml

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 9, 2007, 9:20:47 PM2/9/07
to
Raiph


First, I want to separate the marketing work that the Mozilla project
has done and is doing from any hypothetical misleading activities. The
work we’ve been doing to explain Mozilla and Firefox to people is done
with an extreme focus on doing this in ways we can all feel good about,
and I’m quite proud of it.

All activities of the Mozilla project must be conduced with high
integrity and a respect for individuals.

mitchell

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 10, 2007, 1:10:20 PM2/10/07
to
Hi Raiph
By “enriching the lives of individual human beings” I mean that the
Internet should be good for individual people, not only convenient for
large organizations.
For example, imagine the Internet as a giant automated phone system
where you can never get to a human being, can only fit into the boxes
that were predetermined when the system was designed and can never get a
response to an individualized problem. That may be an effective system
to manage, but it’s not aimed at individual humans.

Trust may become the big issue in security. I’ve deliberately left this
non-specific precisely because there are a number of potential hot
buttons. So I would not be specific about any particular initiative
(like the Trusted Computing Initiative) in this document.

Individuals able to share their experiences. By this I mean a bunch of
people will likely be happy finding one company that does much of what
they need, and doing much of their Internet activities there. That’s
great. Some people will want to mix and match services, offerings,
data, to live within their own mash-ups. The opportunity to do these
sorts of things if one wants is one aspect of shaping one’s experience.
There are other, more systematic aspects as well. Some web services
respond to the user . Anti-phishing services are an example. In this
case, the individual doesn’t take intentional action, but his or her
activies can help shape the experience.

Rewrite of principle 6? -- 6 now reads:

6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon

interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and
decentralized participation worldwide.


Principle 8 – made this change (deleted “development)
Principle 9 – Yes, I think no one is completely happy with item 9 yet.
It represents something very important – that the public benefit matters
whether or not it conflicts with commercial goals. It may not. But
even in cases where it does, the public benefit aspect must not be left
out. I’d like to improve the langage somehow, but haven’t managed it yet.

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Feb 10, 2007, 1:13:58 PM2/10/07
to
Gerv

See previous comment re item 1 and perhaps item 10 being more like an
assertion. I’m currently planning it as is to avoid a complex,
multi-part document.

I guess we could talk about whether the people you describe are living a
“modern” life. The point here isn’t to say who is and who isn’t, or who
should or shouldn’t. It is to assert that the Internet is
(increasingly) integral to this aspect of life, and that the scope of
the Internet’s importance isn’t simply entertainment, for example.

Maybe. But there are many structural incentives to benefit
organizations, or gov