HN Explorer

Ask HN: Should the Mozilla Foundation be forked?

22 points by dabockster ↗ HN
The recent ToS issues with the Mozilla Foundation [1] isn't the first time its continuing viability as an organization have come into question. Issues like its massive executive salaries [2], its dependence on Google funding [3], continued focus on things like bundled software (!!!) that isn't a web browser (eg Mozilla VPN), and the fact that Firefox is one of the last competing web browser engines to Chromium/Blink - all of that has me wondering if we can continue to trust Mozilla continuing to develop and maintain the Firefox browser.

It's easy for us as devs to say "if you don't like it, fork it" for software code, but the code isn't the problem here. The organization managing and turning the code into a software product is the problem. And we can't necessarily fork that - something totally new would have to be built to manage the Firefox code.

So how do you all feel about this? Is it time to find Firefox (or a successor brand for the codebase) a new home? Is it time for the 3rd iteration of Netscape to happen?

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/28/mozilla-responds-to-backlash-over-new-terms-saying-its-not-using-peoples-data-for-ai/ [2] https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/Mozilla#Excessive_Executive_Pay_Critiques [3] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/25/doj_google_collateral_damage_opinion/_opinion/

13 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 46.1 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
loanedempathy
There's nothing stopping anybody from forking the code and maintaining it--you can just do things.

But, I would ask...was the excommunication of Eich worth it, all things considered? Have we learned anything?

dabockster
There is, though. You'd be going at it alone. That's what this post is about - taking the pulse of the community at large to see how we all feel about possibly making a new org.

You can't make a viable browser product by yourself.

walterbell
> Is it time for the 3rd iteration of Netscape to happen?

The 3rd iteration is Brave.

Those pursuing the 4th iteration need threat models and defenses to improve upon the results of prior iterations.

neilsimp1
You could maybe argue that it's a spiritual successor, but tech-stack wise, Firefox and Netscape are in their own family, and Brave is in the Chromium-based browser family.
yellow_lead
Prefer to use a browser that doesn't have cryptocurrency nonsense built in
jryb
I think it would help to explicitly reframe this question as: “where can we find the millions of dollars needed to pay for however many full time software engineers are needed to develop a modern browser?”
moooo99
I do not think this option alone would suffice, but I think Mozilla under estimates people’s willingness to donate to the development of Firefox specifically.

Nowadays Mozilla seems to be focused on many things, just not their browser. I do think there is a significant amount of people that would be willing to donate if they are sure these funds get allocated to the development of FF instead of AI and AdTech investments or ridiculous CEO pay packages.

Again, I don’t think this funding stream alone would suffice to make up for lost Google money, etc. - but I do think it would be significant enough to be worth a shot.

wruza
Google will just buy everyone and slowly suffocate the rest.

The correct way is to recognize the web standard itself as an enemy and revisit it to make making browsers viable rather than a $200M enterprise in maintenance alone.

Browsers and content aren’t fundamentally different from 25 years ago. But standards are ever growing like cancer, with the “help” of google and other web cartels.

A browser is 99.99% just a text and graphics app with a security aspect. Not a complex ERP system, not a bleeding edge next-gen video game. A browser cannot cost a billion per year, that’s bullshit people want you to believe.

For some contrast, in firefox per month costs:

GTA 5 was 0.7 ff months in development, 3.5 ff years in revenue (one of the most succesful ever).

Cyberpunk 2077 was 0.7 ff months dev, 3.7 ff mohths in revenue.

Star Citizen 2.5 ff months dev (notoriously expensive game!), 3.5 ff months in revenue.

A browser is just a wooden toy compared to all of the above. We can add 10-100x for reach and security and still not get firefox costs. Web cartels are simply sabotaging the web and nobody bats an eye.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
dabockster
> Google will just buy everyone and slowly suffocate the rest.

> A browser cannot cost a billion per year, that’s bullshit people want you to believe.

Those two comments contradict each other. And the second one shows why Google won't just buy everyone out. Competing as a business/org is totally doable if all Big Tech does is throw money at problems.

dabockster
Another reframe: "Do we need millions of dollars to hire a ton of devs, or can it be done in a lean and mean style team?"