Mozilla launches WebRTC-based video chat, Firefox Hello
Howdy all, What would be the software freedom requirements for a video chat system? Does “Firefox Hello”, included in recent versions of Mozilla Firefox URL:https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/hello/, satisfy the requirements? The protocol WebRTC URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC has an open specification URL:http://www.webrtc.org/ with free-software reference implementations. Are there patent holders who could threaten users and/or implementors? So long as the communication is using standard WebRTC, any conformant client can communicate with any other. The Mozilla Firefox and Google Chromium browsers are licensed under free-software conditions. Both are a WebRTC client by default if I understand correctly URL:https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebRTC URL:http://www.webrtc.org/blog/seeyouontheweb. What's also needed is a WebRTC server to receive client connections, and to manage sessions. The WebRTC project has a demonstration server at URL:https://apprtc.appspot.com/, but I think it's not meant to be a full-fledged service for public use. That also requires users to understand that there's a third party involved: the WebRTC service provider, mediating the connection between the parties who want to communicate. That's a significant learning barrier for many people. Firefox Hello appears to be a way of hiding the fact that a third-party server is involved, in order to make the user experience simpler: it has already chosen the WebRTC server and you don't need to understand that in order to use it. It's in Mozilla Firefox version 35 or later, which I don't have (I'll wait for it to enter Debian Jessie), so I haven't tested it. What software-freedom implications are there? Can the client easily choose to use any WebRTC server? Do the connections get logged by some third party? Are the Terms of Use problematic for software freedom URL:https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/firefox-hello/? Does using it require the running of any non-free code (e.g. JavaScript without a free software license)? -- \ “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too | `\ much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” | _o__) —Thomas Jefferson, 1791-12-23 | Ben Finney
On 07/03/15 14:38, Ben Finney wrote:
What would be the software freedom requirements for a video chat system?
I feel the main consideration is that such functionality should not be centralised, or at least not mandatory that it is so. If it cannot work directly P2P and must rely on another server to initiate the connection (STUN), proxy to get around NAT (TURN), etc. then there should be free software available to host this yourself.
Does “Firefox Hello”, included in recent versions of Mozilla Firefox URL:https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/hello/, satisfy the requirements?
As far as the Firefox Hello "Start a conversation" button specifically? I'm not certain. If you search about:config for "loop.", you see various Hello-related strings (eg. "loop.server"). This suggests that replacing the server is possible. Although I haven't tried using Firefox Hello to communicate with anyone, I have "started a conversation" successfully without requiring a Mozilla account. This just generates a URL that needs to be shared for other people to join the video conference (where the URL appears as https://hello.firefox.com/somehash). There is server software provided by Mozilla, but I'm unsure if it's exactly what Firefox Hello is running. https://docs.services.mozilla.com/loop/ https://github.com/mozilla-services/loop-server
Are there patent holders who could threaten users and/or implementors?
Not that I've heard, but that's not saying much.
That also requires users to understand that there's a third party involved: the WebRTC service provider, mediating the connection between the parties who want to communicate. That's a significant learning barrier for many people.
There's a clear reference to the Terms of Use and Privacy Notice when clicking the "Start a conversation" icon in Firefox, which is a strong indicator IMO.
What software-freedom implications are there? Can the client easily choose to use any WebRTC server?
I wouldn't call editing settings in about:config difficult, but it's certainly not obvious. Of course, Firefox Hello isn't necessary to use WebRTC with Firefox, but I imagine that's not what you're asking. The main frustration I have with Mozilla right now is that they are preparing to drop Firefox Sync 1.1 support. The latest Sync 1.5 includes integration with a Mozilla account AFAICT, and there is no easy way to self-host this (although it is possible - it's not well documented and quite complex). I feel Mozilla is very much trying to push end users towards centralised services which Mozilla will provide - ignoring people most keen to maintain freedom while instead concerning themselves with providing convenience for the masses. -Adam
participants (2)
-
Adam Bolte -
Ben Finney