Have they even tried getting funding via national digital sovereignty efforts?
The justification seems easy - "fund us so your citizens don't need to depend on foreign ad companies and US-based tracking to access local and national services."
Make sure any parts which are dependent on Mozilla infrastructure can be re-hosted by other providers.
Have releases which are fully free software, with reproducible builds, which can be audited to ensure privacy protections.
And commit to legal agreements to preserve those protections.
The countries in turn can require that services in those countries must support Firefox, or perhaps specifically ESR versions of Firefox.
That sounds great in theory, but I'm extremely skeptical of it working in reality. Do we have any good examples of governments backing significant open-source projects like this, and even worse, in a manner collaborating with other governments? Basically you're asking for the EU to become the main funding source of Mozilla, because it's hard to envision anyone else joining this effort.
>That I don't know of more is besides the point, which is have they tried?
They haven't lost their funding from Google yet, and the case ruling was only what? a week ago? Did you expect them to see into the future and predict this turn of events or something? I imagine they're very busy talking about this stuff right now, but 6 months ago they probably weren't too worried about suddenly losing their Google funding because of government action.
> The countries in turn can require that services in those countries must support Firefox, or perhaps specifically ESR versions of Firefox.
The countries can also trade that support for features that might not be in the best interest of its users, such as introducing closed blobs to the code, "benign" trackers that allow government oversight of surfing, breakage when using VPNs, etc.
People could fork those browsers if the code is still open, but look at how many people use Floorp, or Vivaldi.
I feel it's akin to government support of journalism.
Those are good points. If FF can diversify the sovereign funds its tied to then it can cancel out some of the problems.
I knew where you were coming from re: fully free software. My concern was more how its sovereign donors could influence that.
I didn't know about Naenara. Checking it out.
And yeah I agree about gov't support for journalism, but in the case of NPR (I work for one of their member stations), when large entities like X decide to label them "Government Sponsored" or whatever it indicates that there are some who see a conflict of interest. That could carry over to browsers.
NPR is government funded in that lots of different governments, including university radio stations, decided to buy their news feed instead of (or in addition to) CBC and/or BBC.
If that's a conflict of issue, then having a paltry 40 sovereign funds would also be an issue.
It's also blowing smoke, as a single man, Murdoch, owns hundreds of local, national, and international publishing outlets, but the single owner of an entity which is too small to be considered a DMA gateway doesn't care about the details.
The justification seems easy - "fund us so your citizens don't need to depend on foreign ad companies and US-based tracking to access local and national services."
Make sure any parts which are dependent on Mozilla infrastructure can be re-hosted by other providers.
Have releases which are fully free software, with reproducible builds, which can be audited to ensure privacy protections.
And commit to legal agreements to preserve those protections.
The countries in turn can require that services in those countries must support Firefox, or perhaps specifically ESR versions of Firefox.