On 10/05/2014 07:55 PM, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:

Do you have any information about how the Mozilla Foundation plans to implement this?

Hi Pierre,

I think this link [1] which you might not have seen on change.org explains the way Mozilla considers to go.

They already have some options in mind. One option mentioned is creating a fork of Firefox which has DRM included and offering both to the users. IMHO this sounds like a chrome vs. chromium thing. I think it's a similar story here.

I don't have enough background knowledge about DRM to know how often you will need this to have a "good" Internet experience. All I know is that neither DRM nor Silverlight will work on Linux comfortable. I can't believe that Adobe will support GNU! Linux in there Access CDM for long. They recently stopped to support the adobe reader[2] which IMHO mainly companies use in there work flows. They also changed support for Flash player to maintenance mode and haven't done more then critical bug fixes for quite some time. Furthermore support for Adobe Air (which is I think less painful then the other two above) is no longer given for Linux OS.

I think it's time to stop DRM and push HTML5 further to get an open web experience with many advantages compared to HTML Version 4 or less.

Let's see what time brings.

Best Regards, Thomas

[1] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ [2] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-No-Longer-Listed-as-Supported-Platform-...

op 05-10-14 19:55, Pierre Schweitzer schreef:

Dear all,

I'd like to raise a few points on that concern, because they are a few dark corners for me. I hope you can throw some light for me on this. What's exactly the matter with supporting DRM? It means that they will have to ship some closed source binary with Firefox so that DRM will properly work in Firefox?

No, there will be no closed source in Firefox, but Firefox will have a mechanism what can download closed source from Adobe when needed, and when the user allows it.

If that's the case, what about letting the users the freedom to choose? Distributions rebuild their Firefox (or equivalent), so they can provide a DRM-free and a DRM-compliant release? I'm seeing this as it could be done for Linux with non-free and free firmwares. Perhaps a too naive approach?

It's like downloading and using non-free software.

A distro can remove the download-mechanism, or package it seperate in a non-free repository.

I'd like to highlight some major point in the end: the user must be free. That's IMHO the most important thing, and this shouldn't be forgotten. Let's impersonate a Firefox end-user. They want to be able to browse the web and visit sites that have an interest for them. This might include Netflix for instance. And this requires DRM support. Firefox doesn't have it and plans to have it. Why would we choose for the user what's good or not? That's not free software.

I think a browser like Firefox is important for us. When they would remove the possibility to use DRM many users would go away. Maybe it would mean the end for Firefox in time.

Chromium is nice too, but I like not to be dependent from such a big commercial organisation like Google is. Now they've removed NPAPI support from Chromium for Linux. I understand they do that, but many people cannot use some important features like Java anymore in that browser. In some countries you really need Java (Danmark, Mexico).

It's important that flash will go away. HTML5 with DRM is a good argument to remove flash. At the moment many sites are migrating from flash to HTML5. Without DRM!

I've removed flash (and free alternatives) completely from my computer. I use only free software now and I've no big problems. Sometimes I get a warning that I need flash, but it's most of the time for advertising. Most video sites work without problems with HTML5 now. (But for many cool games for kids, you still need flash.)

On the other side, I understand the petition. When Mozilla would not implement DRM this would be really good for the fight against DRM. Some sites will not use DRM because not all browsers support it.

But I am afraid it's not good for the market share of Firefox and I think Firefox and Mozilla are important.

Let's have the upstream developer do what he believes match the users requirements. And let's just ask him possibility to eventually disable such features if they don't match distribution/user philosophy.

Ideally, this should be implemented so that there's only one mainstream firefox and a closed-source module that you can plug/install whenever you need it. This would let the end-user the freedom to use the DRMs (or not).

Do you have any information about how the Mozilla Foundation plans to implement this?

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-us...

I am against DRM and I will not enable it. But I will not sign the petition at this moment. But, maybe somebody can convince me.

What I hope, is that DRM will be not-used. WIll be hacked. Is irritating people. I hope we will find ways to kill DRM.

What I would like, is when Firefox would give default a big warning when a site uses DRM, even when you have installed the closed-source software from Adobe. I would like to sign such a petition.

With regards, Paul van der Vlis.

If I'm missing anything, explain me.

Cheers, Pierre

On 05/10/2014 19:10, Hugo Roy wrote:

...

Hi,

...

There's a petition to ask Mozilla to remove DRM

...

https://www.change.org/p/mozilla-remove-drm-from-firefox#invite

...

Best,

...

-- Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org> Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal> Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

...

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! https://l.fsfe.org/nl

...

_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

---

Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

On 05/10/14 23:56, Paul van der Vlis wrote:

op 05-10-14 22:28, Paul van der Vlis schreef:

...

I am against DRM and I will not enable it. But I will not sign the petition at this moment. But, maybe somebody can convince me.

At the moment I see many sites offer HTML5 without DRM when there is no flash. That's really nice. And most Silverlight sites are already gone.

But there is a big risk: maybe at some day, when the browsers support it, all those sites will turn on DRM. And you will see nothing anymore.

I agree - that is the big risk of Mozilla's decision. Mozilla says they are making it easier for the users - but they are also making it easier for the publishers to cease using non-DRM channels.

It is important to remember that this is a market where free software is only one piece of the puzzle. Mozilla can influence but may not be able to change the overall direction at this point in time.

As well as the petition, it is worth asking what other positive steps we can take.

For example, a few years ago I helped get flactag into a package on Debian. flactag and MusicBrainz make it easier for people to manage a collection of music CDs and play them back with a similar experience to iTunes but without the nasty things such as user tracking or the difficulties that arise when you want to give a CD to somebody else as a gift or when another person in your household wants to play the CD.

Awareness of flactag and other things like this is still quite minimal though, despite the obvious benefits they present.

It could also be further optimized for batch processing (it is easy to script the batch for creating the flac files, but the tagging process is interactive with pauses between each file)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

I guess we do all agree that DRM are a nuisance.

I'm just not sure whether using Mozilla Foundation willingness to support them is the right place to raise such debate.

We shouldn't fight so that FOSS actors don't implement DRM support, but we'd rather fight so that DRM disappear. Which is already a work-in-progress, as your next mail shows.

Regarding the paid-for services using DRM (and HTML5 - work-in-progress here as well), I can quote France where we have two major services competing: Netflix & CanalPlay. Both are using DRMs and are about to switch to HTML5. They recommend using Google Chrome at the moment and up to date libnss, hence the recent upgrade of such library on Ubuntu recently (through security channel).

This is indeed a market loss for Firefox, but at least, in France it's hard to know how big it is. We don't really know about the amount of users of such services.

On 05/10/2014 22:50, Hugo Roy wrote:

Yes, for users who do not want to install DRM, this will not affect them. But this will affect everyone else who will simply follow the default reccomendation and end up supporting DRM.

Mozilla argue they do this because they cannot go against the trend in the market to impose DRM on HTML5 videos and thus, in order not to lose market shares because of this, they will support it.

I think this analysis is wrong, because the Firefox market is wider than just the US and the biggest video website in the world does not have DRM at all (except for the paid-for service, which I never heard of and is probably again only used in the US).

DRM are a nuisance and their costs should not be a shared burden for Mozilla and Firefox users worldwide.

Just my personal opinion

Best,

_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

- -- Pierre Schweitzer <pierre at reactos.org> System & Network Administrator Senior Kernel Developer ReactOS Deutschland e.V.

Pierre Schweitzer wrote:

I'd like to raise a few points on that concern, because they are a few dark corners for me. I hope you can throw some light for me on this. What's exactly the matter with supporting DRM? It means that they will have to ship some closed source binary with Firefox so that DRM will properly work in Firefox?

Coming from a perspective of software freedom and discussing this on an FSF mailing list such as we are, it seems to me the situation should not be framed in terms of the movement that doesn't support software freedom. A "closed source"[closed] binary is a reference to the open source movement, the very movement that has no problems abandoning their own developmental methodology[abandon] when a sufficiently convenient and powerful proprietary program is published. This abandonment is no accident, as that movement was designed to not support software freedom in the first place. As the FSF points out, "Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success[...]".

If that's the case, what about letting the users the freedom to choose? Distributions rebuild their Firefox (or equivalent), so they can provide a DRM-free and a DRM-compliant release? I'm seeing this as it could be done for Linux with non-free and free firmwares. Perhaps a too naive approach?

The freedom to choose is a ruse. Choosing unethical behavior or choosing power over others[power] (proprietary software certainly is the proprietor asserting power over that program's users) is an attempt to turn software freedom into merely another alternative[alternative] among equally valid alternatives, thus dissuading anyone from thinking non-freedom is an oppression.

I'd like to highlight some major point in the end: the user must be free. That's IMHO the most important thing, and this shouldn't be forgotten. Let's impersonate a Firefox end-user. They want to be able to browse the web and visit sites that have an interest for them. This might include Netflix for instance. And this requires DRM support. Firefox doesn't have it and plans to have it. Why would we choose for the user what's good or not? That's not free software.

Sometimes freedom requires a sacrifice. Your Netflix example currently requires Free Software users to do without Netflix. This is a small sacrifice anyone can make in the pursuit of software freedom.

Let's have the upstream developer do what he believes match the users requirements. And let's just ask him possibility to eventually disable such features if they don't match distribution/user philosophy.

What you propose here is indistinguishable from how proprietary software already works. Users on MacOS or Windows can choose not to install Adobe's DRM binary. And asking for "eventual" action is asking for delaying one's software freedom.

The heart of this issue is not how much of a nuisance DRM is, nor whether Adobe will publish binaries that run on one's preferred GNU/Linux system. Those are minor technical distractions that fail to address the freedoms all computer users deserve and how important it is to consistently frame the issue around these freedoms in order to ensure any real resolution is built by first respecting these freedoms.

[power] See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html for explication on how proprietary software is always power over users, never freedom.

[abandon] See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html particularly the section titled "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always" for how this abandonment occurs.

[closed] See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Closed for more on this.

[alternative] See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative for more on this.

Freedom of choice is a nice illusion when most users simply follow the default settings (and in most user-scenarios that means Firefox will get them DRM including a nonfree content decryption module).

op 06-10-14 10:12, Pierre Schweitzer schreef:

You talked twice about the "default settings". Do we know that they'll be regarding DRM? Can't we imagine it will act as for some "dangerous" plugins in Firefox: it will prompt the user before doing anything?

True. Or you could imagine a warning what you can turn-off per site. So when you come the first time on a site what uses DRM, you will get a warning, even when you turned the warning off on other sites.

Otherwise, can't be the default settings changed on distribution basis, each packager being able to set them as it matches best its distribution philosophy?

Most people are not using a free distro. With a "per distro setting" you don't get many people rejecting DRM.

With regards, Paul van der Vlis.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Dear Fellows,

op 06-10-14 09:39, Hugo Roy schreef:

Freedom of choice is a nice illusion when most users simply follow the default settings

With Freedom comes Responsability. If I choose to not change default settings, then that is my choice. If I choose to change default settings, which in this case seems to be the smarter choice, then that is my choice as well.

Best Regards, - -- André Ockers Fellow, Free Software Foundation Europe

ao@fsfe.org GnuPG Key: F5FE3668

https://blogs.fsfe.org/ao