Mozilla acts like a corporation and not a non-profit. There is no humility or grace in their communication.
An organization like Mozilla should take a stance and do the opposite by making their policy as narrow as possible.
This costs more in legal costs, but for an organization that defines itself as a champion of user privacy and control this should be the natural choice.
If the charity is a non-profit specifically for development of a non-profit web browser, what's the problem?
The point of incorporating as a charity is that it makes you exempt from taxes. Obviously the government that collects taxes wants to make sure that every corporation doesn't incorporate as a charity solely to avoid taxes, so it places strict limits on what you're allowed to do with charitable donations.
The Mozilla Foundation (as distinct from the Mozilla Corporation) is specifically a 501(c)(3) charity under US law. That means it can use its funds for the following:
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
Notably, developing a free web browser is not one of the charitable activities that the IRS recognizes.
I find your argument uninsightful. If I were on a jury, I would find developing a free web browser to be charitable under multiple statements:
- preventing cruelty to children
Childrens' browsing habits should not should not be available for sale.
- relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged
A free browser will help the poor, and the distressed, and the underprivileged. There are poor people who are poor because they are data-mined by advertisers. There are people who are distressed about their privacy. There are underprivileged people whose livelihoods are abused by corporations.
- advancement of education or science
A free browser is both educational (handy for learning how to write software or build websites) and scientific (generating studies and reports on internet capabilities and safety).
> defending human and civil rights secured by law
Do you really want to argue that a free browser does not defend freedom and privacy in the US (since you cite US definition of charity) as heavily implied by the US Bill of Rights and as supported by US Courts [0]?
Why not?