Even as Google launched its own browser, it's continued to funnel millions of dollars to Mozilla, the nonprofit maker of Firefox. Almost 90 percent of Mozilla's revenues — last reported at $75 million in 2007 — have come from a search-referral deal in which Google pays Mozilla when Firefox users perform searches in the browser's toolbar. Shortly before Google launched Chrome, Mozilla and Google renewed the deal through 2011.

But a Google-eyed tipster tells us that Google is looking for ways to cut its support of Mozilla sharply. This has top Mozilla engineers spooked, and several of them have popped by the Googleplex to interview for jobs there.

It makes sense that Google would want to support its own Chrome Web browser. And yet bullying a nonprofit would seem to clash with Google's "don't be evil" motto. Perhaps "don't lose money" has become more important.

Mozilla hasn't filed financials since its 2006 report, when it just squeaked by a rule that allowed it to avoid disbursing more of the money that has gushed into its coffers from a lucrative search-referral deal with Google.

Since nonprofits like Mozilla are allowed to file their finances on a downright sluggish schedule, it will be some time before we know what's really happening with the browser maker. But it has been holding onto a large chunk of change just in case it faced a challenge over its nonprofit status, and we've heard that the latest review of Mozilla's finances didn't hold good news. Wouldn't that have made for a much interesting conversation than whether Baker considers herself a geek sex symbol?

(Photo via Mother Jones)

The real question is, why would Apple have approached Opera in the first place? Simple. It's not like the Cupertino company has thousands of employees to throw at a browser project — with only a few thousand in corporate and the rest in retail, Apple is actually happy to outsource engineering whenever possible. Especially when the company can ensure an exclusivity deal and enforce some creative control over the interface. But that demand of exclusivity led Opera to bow out, which forced Apple to end up developing its own mobile browser after all.

If the source's assertion is true, passing on Apple could prove a miscalculation on Opera's part. Apple is said to have offered it a large piece of then-theoretical iPhone sales. Opera chose a smaller piece of a larger pie in licensing its Opera Mini to multiple carriers and manufacturers, and so far, it's done fine with that strategy.

But even with the bugs and lawsuits, the iPhone is set to beat Steve Jobs's public estimates that Apple would sell 10 million units this year. Meanwhile, mobile search partner Google is intent on porting the company's new Chrome browser to the Android mobile software platform and both Mozilla and Microsoft recently upgraded their competing Firefox and Explorer browsers.

Four years in, and Opera has big money to blow on a bar tab at the Supper Club in San Francisco's SoMa neighborhood. That will buy a lot of champagne and at least a temporary warp in Apple's reality distortion field. But enough to make up for the iPhone money Opera passed up? That remains to be seen.

The loss is especially ill timed, given the recent launch of Google's Chrome browser, which Google says uses the search engine's extensive index of the Web to test for display bugs. Smith is taking the error like a man: "I fucking did it and it was my fault and that's that." But he might want to update his recent post about optimizing database configurations for Web applications. Experience is the best teacher of all.

News.com reporter Stephen Shankland ran tests suggested by the Chrome team. Google's browser trounced the rest of the field:

Faster browsers will, in theory, be good for online commerce. Years of tests and server logs have proven that faster page performance leads users to hit more webpages, whether they realize they're doing it or not. Now if only we had more money to spend online.

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)

85 percent of Mozilla's $67 million in revenues in 2006, the most recent year reported, came from Google, it's true. But Sullivan seems to think this is some kind of bribe, with Mozilla picking Google as the search engine because the company is showering the browser maker with cash.

Utter nonsense. Google pays Mozilla a cut of the revenue generated when Firefox users conduct Google searches. In Asia, Mozilla defaults to Yahoo, not Google, because Yahoo has a larger user and advertiser base in the region, making its searches more lucrative. It's all about the money, sure. But why shouldn't it be?

Mozilla could open up Firefox as Sullivan suggests. The end result would be a lot of annoyed users who have to go through an extra step as they pick their search engine, which would likely be Google anyway. Google doesn't need to bribe Mozilla; the superior economics of its business do the work for Google.

This, by the way, is also why nothing has come of the perpetual rumors that Google is working on its own browser. It could easily build one. But why bother? As long as Google's search ads are more profitable than the competition, there's no reason for Mozilla to send Firefox users elsewhere. A Google browser might hurt adoption of Firefox, which would do more to lower the number of Google searches than Google's own browser would do to raise it. Build a browser? Sure, Google might get to that after it finishes shooting itself in the foot.

Here's something I wonder: Why does no one ask the same question about Apple's Safari browser, which likewise defaults to Google? Google must be paying Apple a considerable amount of money every year, though not enough to break out in its financial reports; Google CEO Eric Schmidt serves on Apple's board, as does Al Gore, who is a senior advisor to Google. Apple has a monopoly on the browser installed on Mac OS X computers, and makes it harder to switch the default search engine; I don't hear anyone calling for Apple to free its browser search.

Which makes me think people like Sullivan are picking on Firefox not because they believe in open browser search, but because Mozilla, owned by a nonprofit, is a more easily pressured target. A familiar stratagem of attention-seeking activists. Let's not pretend that calling for open search is anything but a tactic for generating false controversy. And let's not pretend that Mozilla is doing anything except trying to make money.

I spent the better part of today at Mozilla's offices in Toronto - the workspace Vallewag labeled as 'the worst in tech'. Mozilla's Toronto office is far from the worst tech workspace I've ever seen - in fact I'd rank it among the best small office spaces in tech I've visited.

Unfortunately for Kerner's case, he included a video tour of Mozilla's Toronto offices in his post. Take a look at the clip and you'll find that there sometimes is wisdom in the crowds.

1. Mozilla
2. Facebook
3. Mahalo
4. DoubleClick
5. Yahoo
6. Microsoft
7. Google
8. LinkedIn
9. Jajah
10. Adobe

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

• Tech's 10 worst workspaces
• Yahoo
• Mozilla
• Mahalo
• Google
• Microsoft
• LinkedIn
• Jajah
• Facebook
• DoubleClick
• Adobe

That was Jamie Zawinski, the Netscape engineer who helped "free the lizard" by open-sourcing Mozilla, even though he apparently offered up his SoMa nightclub, DNA Lounge, for the event. Zawinski did, however, build a time capsule of the early Web — including early iterations of the Mosaic browser and website — for those of you who couldn't make the party but would like to wallow in the nostalgia. Who did show up? Dozens who RSVP'd after Valleywag's calendar listing yesterday, forcing Mozilla to open up the bar when the drink tickets ran out. Photos, including our own Owen Thomas making nice with Anglosexual Flickr engineer Cal Henderson, by Randal Alan Smith.

Eich credits Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus. The story goes that around the turn of the century, AOL agreed to spin off the Mozilla Foundation, but only wanted to fund it with a "get lost package," according to the Chronicle.

Eich says that Kapor, himself a victim of the Microsoft hegemony, leaned on a friend, AOL exec Ted Leonsis, to get the Mozilla Foundation a better sendoff. Eventually AOL agreed to set up the foundation with $2 million. It was enough to keep Mozilla alive and thriving.

Now, Mozilla's browser Firefox owns around 16 percent market share and Mozilla is more profitable than its new CEO would like you to think about.

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.

The European Commission did not pursue the same complaints in their own recently concluded antitrust suit against Microsoft, and Mozilla's Firefox and Apple's Safari have been slowly but surely taking market share from Microsoft's dominant product. But it is Europe, so one never knows. Maybe Opera can successfully sue itself into getting some users, and keep Microsoft spending money on lawyers instead of coders.