Thanks, Adam, for your helpful response. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015, at 00:37, Adam Bolte wrote:
On 29/04/15 22:42, Les Kitchen wrote:
Given the state of the world we live in, I think the Mozilla ... You say "option of interacting with DRM" and then attempt to draw an analogy between supporting EME, and supporting non-free operating systems the browser can run on. But this analogy is flawed.
When we speak of Mozilla supporting DRM, we mean as a client to the browser. That is - it is facilitating the user in restricting herself or himself in ways that were not options prior to installation of the browser. However when Mozilla supports operating systems that are proprietary and incorporate DRM, they are not causing more harm to the user - on the contrary, Mozilla is granting freedoms to people who would otherwise most likely be running a proprietary browser that came pre-installed with the operating system.
I'm still not convinced that the analogy is flawed. It might not be as strong as I thought it was, but I think it still stands. I guess I need to do a bit more reading and thinking on the topic.
For a long long time, free software will have to inter-operate with non-free systems.
"Inter-operate", "interact"... such vague terms. As previously illustrated, it might be a problem or it might not be a problem, depending on the situation.
Yeah, and analysing those situations can be tricky and contentious at times. I can recall the considerations and discussions, say, that went into the formulation of existing free-software licences, even the versions of the GPL — for example considering process boundaries rather than say subroutine boundaries.
We need to build a ramp so many people can move towards greater freedom, not a high wall that only the few can climb. If free software is only some kind of ascetic practice for the few, then we're not really advancing freedom.
What's happening here is that Mozilla has created a ramp for people to switch to a DRM-riddled video service in the browser. How is that a greater freedom? They have the freedom to have their freedoms taken away, sure... but that's the kind of backwards thinking which has resulted licenses such as the FreeBSD license.
Interesting that you mention that. When I was writing that post, I almost mentioned the traditional tension between GPL-style and BSD-style licences (and perhaps more important, the mind-sets behind them about what freedom means). I decided not to, since I was already ranting on too much. But it was certainly in my mind as I wrote. Part of it is the question of whether you consider BSD licences bad or just less good. (And in terms of organizational culture, I note that the Mozilla Public Licence is a kind of GPL / BSD mashup.) I need some time to think more about this. As I see it, the big question is, What are the practical strategies that are going to advance free software in the long term? In that, yes, as you say, there are some lines that should not be crossed, but also a lot of areas in which justifiable trade-offs can be made, and there is scope for concerned, thoughtful people to reach different opinions. The main thing is that in the end we work together. — Smiles, Les.