It perpetuates misunderstandings to have them repeated so often, or repeated in a way that's sure to lead to misunderstanding. Mozilla Foundation is technically a "non-profit", but the company that develops Firefox is not. The non-profit does not fund any of the software development. Corporate revenue from the commercial business partnerships is what funds that, and it's able to cover 100% of it and then some.
It seems to be a for-profit commercial company that is fully owned by the non-profit. IANAL, so I don't know the complexities involved with the setup.
It's more complicated than trying to say that the "Mozilla that people think of" is not a non-profit. The Mozilla that I think of seems to be a combination of both.
