Which policies apply to AMO-listed addons vs. self-distributed addons?

I’ve read all of https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/add-on-policies/, but I’m still unclear: which of these only apply to AMO-listed add-ons, and which apply to self-distributed add-ons, too?

If they apply to all add-ons, then where can I find the separate policies for AMO listing? (Could a link to such be added to the linked page?)

1 Like

Hi @ishygddt_xyz, the policies apply to both listed and unlisted extensions. Do you have any questions about any particular part of the policies?

Hi, and thanks for the response!

Are you certain that listed and self-distributed extensions are held to the same rules?

The “prototypical” example / what inspired me to ask is the Dissenter add-on [a 3rd-party comments module allowing users to easily chat amongst themselves about any URL], which was barred from the AMO store but [presumably] not refused signing for self-distribution given that it didn’t contain any “surprises” or non-consensual user data processing.

I’m concerned in particular over whether or not I’m allowed to build arbitrary add-ons for personal use (or use among a small friend group), without forcing everyone to switch to the ESR or Nightly branches or find a maintained, trusted, unbranded fork. What specific limitations does Mozilla impose on this use-case?

We do have some additional content conditions for listing on AMO:

All add-ons submitted for listing on AMO are subject to Mozilla’s Conditions of Use.

If you sign an add-on through AMO, your add-on – listed or unlisted – is subject to review at any time.

1 Like

Those regulations state, among other things, that:

You may not use any of Mozilla’s services to: …Upload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality or violence

Does this mean that (for instance) an add-on which e.g. provides a gallery-view for 4chan or enables unmoderated peer-to-peer filesharing would be prohibited even from private distribution among non-development Firefox users?

Or does that page of regulations only apply to AMO-listed extensions? I’m sorry if I sound redundant; I just want to be certain whether that page does, or does not apply to unlisted, self-distributed extensions.

In particular: would Mozilla ever take actions to block [such as denying signatures to] an unlisted add-on which egregiously broke the regulations on that page, but that completely abided by the main page’s rules about malware and secure handling of user data?