You seem to have a contradiction within your three sentences.

Eich was CEO of a company called the Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation employs people to work on free projects. one of these projects, Firefox, is governed by The Mozilla Foundation, a completely different entity that Brendan Eich is not a member of. Javascript is handled by ECMA, which is a completely different entity that Brendan Eich is not a member of. Brendan Eich was instrumental in the creation of both, but he has no brand or direct authority over either Firefox or Javascript.

So while your first two sentences were technically correct, the further understanding makes the third sentence a contradiction. Why is it perfectly fine to boycott a brand Eich has no authority over, but not ban another one for exactly the same reasons?

You have the mozilla governance structure a little wrong. Mozilla owns the Firefox brand and license it to the Mozilla Corporation which in turn are responsible for development and deployment of Firefox.

So while the corporation do have to answer to the foundation, they are not just a bunch of developers hired to "work on Firefox", they are very much responsible for everything Firefox, both day to day development and marketing, but also most long term stuff you can think of is the responsibility of the corporation.

Thank you, this was fairly enlightening. So the Mozilla Foundation keeps all liability at arms-length, and could revoke the corporation's formal license to work on the product, should they prove to mismanage it.

Why don't more open-source projects copy this business model?