"What makes you think Mozilla does not pay taxes?"
Corporate structure. (Mozilla Corp. is wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. Only Mozilla Corporation pays taxes.)
2008 IRS audit.
2012 settlement with IRS.
Perhaps a better statement would have been that Mozilla tries to avoid paying taxes.
Anyway, if what you say is true regarding compilation and exclusion of the DRM code then I'm not sure what everyone in thie thread is complaining about.
Now, how easy is it to compile Firefox these days?
I have not done it in years.
I gave up on X. (Following your exact advice, even with open source: "Don't install it.")
I use UNIX with no graphics layer and simpler text only browsers and even simpler TCP clients to retrieve content. Then if necessary I view it on graphical devices running closed source software.
The interesting thing is when I want to watch video, the last thing I need is a "browser". The core of the video player software I use is the ffmpeg libraries which have nothing to do with web browsers.
I only use HTTP (and other protocols) to transfer content (i.e., to request it), not to watch it.
I see no reason why a single application has to support both (request/transfer and playback).
Why video players have to support "streaming" or why "web browsers" have to play video are still open questions in my mind.
But that's just me. Stuck in the UNIX "one utility, one job" mindset.
> Perhaps a better statement would have been that Mozilla tries to avoid paying taxes.
That flies in the face of what I'm seeing in the Mozilla Corporation financial statements.
> Now, how easy is it to compile Firefox these days?
It depends on which OS you're doing it on, but there are pretty detailed step by step instructions at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Simple_Firefox_buil... and the things it links to. The biggest hassle is making sure that the various prerequisites (a compiler, some development libraries, autoconf 2.13, etc) are installed. On most modern Linux distros or Mac this is not a big deal. On Windows it's a slight bit more annoying.
Corporate structure. (Mozilla Corp. is wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. Only Mozilla Corporation pays taxes.)
2008 IRS audit.
2012 settlement with IRS.
Perhaps a better statement would have been that Mozilla tries to avoid paying taxes.
Anyway, if what you say is true regarding compilation and exclusion of the DRM code then I'm not sure what everyone in thie thread is complaining about.
Now, how easy is it to compile Firefox these days?
I have not done it in years.
I gave up on X. (Following your exact advice, even with open source: "Don't install it.")
I use UNIX with no graphics layer and simpler text only browsers and even simpler TCP clients to retrieve content. Then if necessary I view it on graphical devices running closed source software.
The interesting thing is when I want to watch video, the last thing I need is a "browser". The core of the video player software I use is the ffmpeg libraries which have nothing to do with web browsers.
I only use HTTP (and other protocols) to transfer content (i.e., to request it), not to watch it.
I see no reason why a single application has to support both (request/transfer and playback).
Why video players have to support "streaming" or why "web browsers" have to play video are still open questions in my mind.
But that's just me. Stuck in the UNIX "one utility, one job" mindset.