It would have to be a fork with user support. Mozilla doesn't have much incentive to distance itself from its core product and even less incentive to provide a means by which their users can dictate what policies and products their financial support is for.
Mozilla has too many individuals in its organization, including its executive, who are not so closely tied to Firefox for this idea to succeed.
I think the OP's sentiment was that the name "Godzilla," is awesome and it would elate him to donate for the name alone.
Gozilla is proprietary networking software, nothing to do with Mozilla. So Mozilla can’t fork Gozilla.
Godzilla is a monster character and where Mozilla gets its name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_(mascot)#/media/File:M...
#/media/File:Mozilla_Mascot.svg){kind=link}
I am not sure if that qualifies as an aspiration to be a predator.
That's exactly how it's done for the past 15 years.
Mozilla Corporation is in charge of Firefox development. Mozilla Foundation is in charge of advocacy. Mozilla Corporation is fully owned by the Mozilla Foundation.
Thunderbird development is handled by a different subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation called MZLA Technologies Corporation.
Yes, their naming mechanism is awful.
but the mozilla layoffs yesterday impacted both MDN and firefox. If the corp vs foundation is a distinction without a difference, why bother bringing it up?
It's also wholly under the oversight of Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Foundation has the ability to direct MozCorp to support its non-software development endeavours. Ie, by using Firefox push notifications to spread messages to users.
It's a shame Firefox doesn't sell a developer ready IDE, I'd subscribe to that myself if it means better MDN and that the dev tools team is better funded, and Firefox in addition to other donations from elsewhere, throw in a VPN subscription to sweeten it for most people. I'm ready to pay for anything that funds Firefox directly.
I've even seen some in QA who do have Windows just installing Thunderbird.
Disclaimer: Microsoft employee unaffiliated with Outlook/Exchange :)
Now you have GSuite and others copying that approach. In terms of clients, Outlook is probably a bigger Gmail client than Thunderbird within the enterprise due to the fact that business people in many places are only familiar with it. Yes, the protocols are supported in other clients, but going with something else is a in practice a peculiarity. I don't think that is healthy, but it's what's happening out there and impacting the potential of any other client.
In the early days, Phoenix knew what it was about and had a team driving a really focused product experience for what would become Firefox. This was a very important part of why Firefox had the impact it had.
Thunderbird always felt like a "me too" product focusing on email. In 2002, the set of criteria for global success (an integrated email and calendar experience) was already well defined. The product never got any razor sharp focus and an opportunity was squandered. It's hard to see how Thunderbird can ever achieve what it might have done.
In six months to one year the fork will be in advantage over the original Firefox, and the new management will be able to focus on Firefox fork development.
Presumably many/most of those users are not happy with Google/Chrome/advertising/tracking.
If there is some sort of "threat" to Google from Mozilla, this is like Google funding antitrust think tanks. It is difficult to take Mozilla, the organisation not necessarily the work product, seriously.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/technology/global-antitru...
Neither the (NetBSD) OS nor the GCC compiler I am using, not to mention myriad other programs, needs to be supported by advertising. What makes the "web browser" different?
As the comments on the Register article point out, it seems $400 million/year is how much money it takes to develop/maintain a web browser.
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2020/08/14/mozilla_...
Also, while lots of people gripe about Google adtech, they aren't angry about it enough to switch search engines. The company still has the best search in the business, specifically because they have a detailed profile on you. Furthermore, they're still moderately trustworthy by tech company standards. At least for me, I'd rather trust Google or Microsoft than, say, Facebook. My biggest concern with any new Google service is less "will I lose control of my data" and more "will this service stay live for longer than a year or two".
I wouldn't bet on that. A lot of non-tech-savvy people use Firefox because it was recommended by their nerdy friends.
If funding Mozilla resulted in no return, Google would have realized it by now. They have been doing it for quite a long time.
Conspiracy theory: the return on investment is that the active development of Firefox defends Google against anti-trust accusations.
Can initial steps be taken to financially firewall Firefox development from the rest of Mozilla, as Thunderbird has done successfully? Start by moving the web standards advocacy brain trust to the separate org. Ask users to donate/subscribe. Begin the transition now, don't wait for the next negotiation with Alphabet/Google.
As donations grow, more Firefox teams can move to the independent legal org.