"we encourage developers to link to self-hosted privacy policies"
So now, extensions can change to anything they want at any time they want with our without consent?
somat · 21m ago
Why do they need to change anything?
As far as I know a privacy policy has zero legal weight, that is, a company can put anything it wants into the privacy policy, it has no effect on what is actually done.
bartvk · 2h ago
Yes and this actually is the same when you publish an app in the App Store.
Sporktacular · 26m ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but under the previous process, submitting a policy with an update freezes it to a specific version. That holds the developer to account at least for that update.
proaralyst · 3h ago
> “Closed group” prohibition lifted
This is great: I've wanted a personal extension for a while (roughly to replace my userscripts but with more power and better sync) but was put off by it having to be public or manually installed. Now I can make this!
sdovan1 · 2h ago
I have to reinstall my personal extension every time Firefox restarts. It's so annoying that I ended up writing an AutoHotKey script just to automate it (go to about:debugging#/runtime/this-firefox -> load temporary extension -> select manifest.json). Glad to see the announcement!
gruez · 2h ago
>but was put off by it having to be public or manually installed
Even prior to this there was an option to upload an extension to AMO for "private distribution". Mozilla will sign your extension so it installs without a fuss, but it won't be hosted on AMO. You can still host it on your personal website, or share the .xpi file though.
qiine · 2h ago
Wow so I can upload my extension to firefox servers privately and without needing review process maybe ? and install it on all my device ? (via autosync I suppose?)
Thats handy.
quintu5 · 41m ago
But do they still have an arbitrary 4mb max file size on extension assets?
This makes chunking for any sizable extension an absolute nightmare!
Melatonic · 2h ago
Sounds great - Closed Group extensions could be very useful!
Am4TIfIsER0ppos · 3h ago
If you're not removing the DRM on them (code signing) then what do I care?
_verandaguy · 2h ago
Code signing doesn't stop redistribution of unmodified copies of software, and it allows for cryptographic attestation of its origin (when used properly). If you modify the software, you'll have to re-sign it and make sure your code's consumers trust that signature's chain of trust.
DRM prevents you from redistributing original media (with varying degrees of effectiveness) and doesn't do much for cryptographic attestation (nominally).
These are two very different systems for different purposes.
kevingadd · 2h ago
By what standard is code signing DRM? Lots of stuff is codesigned.
account42 · 2h ago
Add-on policies shouldn't be a thing in the first place - it's my computer, not Mozilla's.
abraham · 2h ago
> We’ve updated Add-on policies for addons.mozilla.org (AMO).
Their policy doesn't apply to your computer. Only to developers that want to use Mozilla's infrastructure for distribution.
Zak · 1h ago
There are artificial limitations to that. For example, stable versions of Firefox for Android won't install extensions from anywhere but Mozilla's infrastructure.
I find that limitation bizarre from an open source browser; it's the sort of behavior I'd expect from Apple.
akkartik · 3h ago
10 years too late. I'm never going back. These days I try to use my browser as vanilla as possible so I don't get my heart broken.
motorest · 2h ago
> 10 years too late. I'm never going back. These days I try to use my browser as vanilla as possible so I don't get my heart broken.
Pray tell, which usable browser do you believe provides better assurances than Firefox? Certainly it's not Chrome or Edge, is it?
gr4vityWall · 1h ago
> which usable browser do you believe provides better assurances than Firefox?
I think they meant that they are not going back to publishing Firefox extensions/add-ons. That doesn't imply they started writing extensions for another browser.
akkartik · 2h ago
Oh I use a Firefox fork. I just don't develop extensions for it anymore.
Firefox could have been the chosen one, the hackable browser. But it's just another hermetically sealed product.
msgodel · 2h ago
tbh it's a lot easier to install ad-hoc extensions in Chromium than Firefox.
So now, extensions can change to anything they want at any time they want with our without consent?
As far as I know a privacy policy has zero legal weight, that is, a company can put anything it wants into the privacy policy, it has no effect on what is actually done.
This is great: I've wanted a personal extension for a while (roughly to replace my userscripts but with more power and better sync) but was put off by it having to be public or manually installed. Now I can make this!
Even prior to this there was an option to upload an extension to AMO for "private distribution". Mozilla will sign your extension so it installs without a fuss, but it won't be hosted on AMO. You can still host it on your personal website, or share the .xpi file though.
This makes chunking for any sizable extension an absolute nightmare!
DRM prevents you from redistributing original media (with varying degrees of effectiveness) and doesn't do much for cryptographic attestation (nominally).
These are two very different systems for different purposes.
Their policy doesn't apply to your computer. Only to developers that want to use Mozilla's infrastructure for distribution.
I find that limitation bizarre from an open source browser; it's the sort of behavior I'd expect from Apple.
Pray tell, which usable browser do you believe provides better assurances than Firefox? Certainly it's not Chrome or Edge, is it?
I think they meant that they are not going back to publishing Firefox extensions/add-ons. That doesn't imply they started writing extensions for another browser.
Firefox could have been the chosen one, the hackable browser. But it's just another hermetically sealed product.
No comments yet