None of this is abnormal.

Yes, it absolutely is. I do not say this lightly. While I'm not an attorney, I review FOSS licenses regularly for my personal projects and for work. Consider:

• Linux Mint uses GPL2
• LibreOffice uses MPL 2
• Countless, countless FOSS software all use free, open-source licenses

They all take user actions and user content. None of them have anything like this.

This is very worrying because each of these points can be refuted with the same quotes. I'll add my own emphasis:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

If Mozilla wants to limit their use of my input, why the do I need to give them a full, non-exclusive license? This is the very language that LinkedIn, et al have used to train their LLMs and said that we all gave them permission to do so. While the letter of the law that may be true, we know that if we had the option to opt out, we would have.

This doesn’t mean you’re giving them a license to do whatever they want with your data, it means you’re giving them the ability to use that data explicitly as you choose to navigate the web.

I'm sorry but the license does not say that is the only way they will use this data. It's not explicit, like you claim. It's implicit. The explicit part is "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license". They say that it will be used to "help you navigate the internet" but what the does that mean?!

"Navigating the internet" does not require me to grant a license. Much of this would fall under fair use and to this day, it's fallen under fair use. And even if it did require a license, why have it be nonexclusive? Language that specifies the length of the license shall be limited to the amount of time necessary to make the connection to a website, provide the necessary services of a website, etc. would all that would be needed.

And this is even BEFORE we get into the whole reasoning of even needing a license. The only reason you need a license from anyone is if you plan on storing, transmitting, transferring, or otherwise utilizing a right protected under copyright law. The only reason why Mozilla could possibly need a license is if they plan on storing or processing your data outside of your device. Best case scenario: they are using your data to "speed up" connections by processing it through their servers. Worst case (and more likely scenario): they want the data to train AI.

These Terms apply until either you or Mozilla decide to end them. You can choose to end them at any time for any reason by stopping your use of Firefox. Mozilla can suspend or end anyone’s access to Firefox at any time for any reason, including if Mozilla decides not to offer Firefox anymore. If we decide to suspend or end your access, we will try to notify you at the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account.

Nothing requires you to stay in this contract after you stop using the services, and this is just reaffirming the fact that, yes, they can stop offering Firefox in the future if they simply can’t sustain it, without somehow breaking contract. More legalese just to protect them from frivolous lawsuits.

While you are factually correct, Firefox is explicitly stating here that they have the right to terminate an individual's use of their browser, a freedom that was protected under the MPL.

Your use of Firefox must follow Mozilla’s Acceptable Use Policy, and you agree that you will not use Firefox to infringe anyone’s rights or violate any applicable laws or regulations.

This basically just means “don’t do crimes using our browser.” Again, standard clause that basically everything has to make sure that nobody can claim in court that Firefox/Mozilla is liable for something a user did with their software.

This part really made my brain itch so I had to dig deeper. This is worse than I initially thought: Mozilla is replacing the MPL as the governing license for their executable and replacing with their TOS.

I'm not sure how I can read their TOS as anything but "terms of use = Firefox bad now". You are losing your freedom under the MPL to use Firefox however you see fit. What concern does Mozilla have if I decide to use their browser for crimes? They aren't facilitating it and under the MPL, they were protected from it. Since the TOS is now replacing the MPL, introducing an "Acceptable Use Policy" no longer makes this FOSS. It makes it Source Available.

As an avid Firefox user for decades and a former supporter of the Mozilla Foundation, this is the last straw for me. I will not agree to use a browser where my data is going to be used by them without any exclusions.

I hope you are right and I'm wrong. But given the current landscape, Mozilla likely feels the pressure to "do something with AI" and we're their products. You can continue to use it, but I'm spending the weekend figuring out alternatives.

People aren't reading the actual EULA, just a headline and maybe, if you're extra lucky, the article where a third party tells them what to think about it.