John Lilly, the CEO of Mozilla, has said he's "not worried" about Google Chrome. That's classic PR-speak. Mozilla and Google are financially intertwined; Firefox makes money for Mozilla by referring users to Google's search engine; that traffic, in turn, generates advertising revenues for Google.

But Mozilla has shown some signs of independence, signing a deal with Yahoo for search in some parts of Asia. And the larger Firefox gets — its browser-usage share has reached 20 percent, according to some estimates — the more leverage it has over Google.

Sure, in theory, Microsoft can tie its Internet Explorer browser to its Web search and mapping services, generating traffic. But that's been the theory for years. Can we say it? Microsoft's online services just aren't very good, which is why users avoid them and they're losing money hand over fist. A new browser won't change that.

So Firefox, not Internet Explorer 8, is the real strategic problem for Google.

Of course, it's impolite to say so. Firefox, as an open-source project, is beloved by geeks, even though its executives are well paid and the project is gushing cash. (Mozilla Corp., a for-profit corporation, is owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit; the company's profits can thereby flow up to the foundation without violating its tax-exempt status. Neat how that works, eh?)

Google would also face an all-out rebellion in the ranks if it came out and said it's taking on Firefox. But there's reason for the Googlers behind Chrome to start a grudge match.

Several key engineers — Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher among them — devoted considerable volunteer time to Firefox before joining Google's browser project. An article posted on the Truth about Mozilla blog in February says Mozilla's CTO, Brendan Eich — a veteran of Netscape — removed Goodger as a Firefox "module owner" in September 2006. Being the "owner" of a module, while a volunteer position, carries considerable cachet. Goodger subsequently removed himself from the Firefox project, as did colleagues like Fisher and Pam Greene.

Wired now reveals the motivation behind Eich's move: By June 2006, Goodger and others had created a prototype of Chrome. If Lilly wasn't worried about Google's browser, why would Eich take Goodger off Firefox? In any event, removing Goodger played into Google's hands, making him all the more willing to take on Mozilla.

The infighting between the browser maker and the search engine shows the limits of open source's "sharing is caring" ideology. Open-source projects can be just as political as proprietary code — and as vulnerable to twisting for corporate priorities. The bottom line of Google Chrome's creation? The bottom line. Google was worried that Firefox was making too much money, and Mozilla was getting too independent. Mozilla had to be stopped — and the true Firefox believers at Google had to be cajoled into doing Larry and Sergey's dirty work.

(Illustration of Ben Goodger by Scott McCloud)

Ostensibly it's because Lilly wants attention focused on Mozilla's army of unpaid volunteers, who help write code for Firefox. But I can think of another reason why Lilly wants to deflect attention away from Mozilla's operations.

The foundation which owns Mozilla recently won approval for "public charity" status. That seems odd, when Mitchell Baker, Lilly's predecessor as CEO, is pulling down a $500,000 salary, and Firefox is making tens of millions of dollars for Mozilla. The test for a public charity, under the tax code, is that it must have substantial support from the outside.

In reality, the Mozilla Foundation is almost entirely supported by the profits of its wholly owned corproration. But the IRS allows nonprofits to look back over several years. One-third of its support must come from donations to qualify as a public charity. Here's the relevant line of Mozilla's voluminous tax filings:

Note that bottom line: Mozilla squeaked over the one-thirds line by a mere 0.12 percent. Suspiciously close. The consequences, if it hadn't just met the required number, would have been severe: Mozilla would have been forced to pay out a substantial portion of its endowment every year. To this day, it retains substantial monies in a reserve fund for just such an event.

There are other tests Mozilla could apply to retain public-charity status — what's called "facts and circumstances," Frank Hecker, the foundation's executive director, told me in November.

Let's talk facts and circumstances, then: The facts are that Mozilla is gushing money, thanks to its search deals. The circumstances are that Mozilla would prefer to retain as much money internally as possible, rather than have to spend it.

This may well be for the good. Firefox is an excellent browser, and open source a worthy cause. But wishing that this all would be "invisible," as Lilly hopes, and hiding behind the legalities of the tax code, as Hecker, in my opinion, sought to do, is unseemly. And unworthy of Mozilla's high purposes.

Mozilla may qualify, just barely, as a "public charity." But it's hardly a charity case. By his statements, I'd say Lilly is unqualified to be the CEO of Mozilla. The community of developers, and larger community of users, deserve a leader who embraces transparency, not invisibility. And someone who will give real answers about Mozilla's finances.