241 Pizza

Both are "opensource" products. "They are free to download and the code on which they are built is openly accessible - free to view and to modify," says Mr Markham. Microsoft reaffirmed its opposition against opening up its own code last week when it launched a case against the European Commission, aiming to overturn an anti-monopoly ruling ordering it to reveal its code to opensource companies. Mozilla, in contrast, argues that such a stance limits the value of traditional computer software.

"Think of it this way: if Outlook is nearly what you want, it is always going to be nearly what you want," says Mr Markham. "But with Thunderbird you can modify it to match your needs."

This flexibility, Mr Markham says, has found favour with corporations who want to build IT systems tailored to their needs and Mozilla has moved to exploit this demand. The group has, for example, tailored a version of Thunderbird to one Fortune 100 company in the US, and for a significant fee. Meanwhile, Firefox, which was released in November, is fast approaching 100 million downloads amid it suggestions it now accounts for between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the market. "If you think about it, these can’t all be individuals – there have to be some business users in there," says Mr Markham.

This commercial and popular success recently forced a radical reorganisation of Mozilla’s structure. Consultancy work and tie-ups with businesses – especially, it is widely speculated, with Google, the search engine giant – mean that the Mozilla Foundation was earning too much money from certain sources to retain its charitable status in the United States.

The group reacted by splitting – "like an amoeba," says Mr Markham – into two parts. The profitable Mozilla Corporation was spun off earlier this year and is now wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, for which Mr Markham works. The Foundation, which remains registered as a charity and operates on a non-profit basis, flies the public-service flag and looks after areas such as governance and the management of assets such as trademarks. The Corporation makes money and pays taxes.

Mr Markham acknowledges that the creation of a corporate entity could potentially run counter to the Mozilla Foundation’s charitable aims, but insists the move will ultimately have little effect.

"The Mozilla Corporation is making more money than anybody probably envisaged when it started, which means the group as a whole doesn’t need to worry about financial security in the short term. That is, of course, welcome and I don’t think will have any significant effect on us. It will let us continue in our aims."

Another group, the "drivers", is in control of technical development, a process that draws heavily on a pool of hundreds of volunteers who help build and test Mozilla’s products alongside the paid staff members. The Foundation, in turn, overlooks this development – a process that depends, Mr Markham says "more on persuasion than fiat".

Organisations always say their people are their most important assets. But for Mozilla, this extends well beyond its staff. The brand already enjoys a huge amount of goodwill, even a cult status.

When supporters launched a campaign to buy an advert to publicise the launch of Firefox in the New York Times last year, people pledged more than $100,000, far more than was required, in a matter of days. "And remember," says Mr Markham. "We have some really brilliant minds working for us, such as Blake Ross, Firefox's co-creator. He came to work for Netscape when he was 14 and now he’s running his own start-up. Mozilla is a meritocracy. Do well and you'll be given more responsibility."

Mozilla is now preparing for the release of Firefox 1.5, an updated version of the web browser, planned for release around November. This next version will again concentrate on security issues, an area in which Mr Markham has a close interest and of which computer users are far more aware after widespread coverage of attacks by cybercriminals such as phishers, who trawl the net for personal bank details.

"As far as I see it, we have to make practices like phishing uneconomical for the people who carry them out," he says.

"In the meantime, should large software firms be regarded as culpable for producing products that have allowed hackers in? That is a very difficult question. Bug-free software is basically impossible to build. Nasa had a good go, but ended up mixing up things like inches and centimetres, basic mistakes, right? Software companies do have, however, a responsibility to make software in ways that are less likely to fail.

"Microsoft has probably, in the past, prioritised new features and usability over security. But that’s changing, I think they are getting better."

And with that, the man from Mozilla places his charitable disposition beyond doubt.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive