Updated letter to Mozilla for Day Against DRM
Hi all, Thanks for the feedback for our "Day Against DRM" letter to Mozilla. I have made a new revision based on that and have posted it to the wiki. There's still about a week to go so any further feedback or refinements welcome. http://freesoftware.org.au/wiki/advocacy/LetterToMozilla Ben M
On 27/04/15 07:16, Ben M wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the feedback for our "Day Against DRM" letter to Mozilla. I have made a new revision based on that and have posted it to the wiki. There's still about a week to go so any further feedback or refinements welcome.
Great work Ben M, this reads well. I particularly like the first paragraph and the way it refers to the existing article. I've made a small tweak to the second paragraph. Hope that's ok. I think it would also be good to give an example of the video format that isn't supported - I don't know which one you're referring too. Thanks again, this is the type if thing I hope we can do more of. :) Regards, Ben
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:36:52PM +1000, Ben Sturmfels wrote:
I think it would also be good to give an example of the video format that isn't supported - I don't know which one you're referring too.
I would suggest changing "free software HTML5 video playback formats" to "free software HTML5 video playback features". It's currently not possible to select video playback of 1080p using the HTML5 player on YouTube. That's the specific example I was thinking of there. YouTube is almost certainly primarily consumed via web browsers (especially considering YouTube videos are frequently found embedded in web pages), whereas I would expect Netflix is consumed via custom-made apps (eg. game consoles, media centers, mobile apps). That's why I find Mozilla's response to EME both odd and suspicious.
Hi fellow FSMers, On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 07:16, Ben M wrote:
Thanks for the feedback for our "Day Against DRM" letter to Mozilla. I have made a new revision based on that and have posted it to the wiki. There's still about a week to go so any further feedback or refinements welcome.
Thanks everyone for your comments and work on the letter. I'm afraid, though, I'll have to be a dissenting voice on this one. Given the state of the world we live in, I think the Mozilla people have adopted a difficult but justifiable compromise — giving users the option of interacting with DRM if they choose, from a free-software browser, with sandboxing to minimize abuses. I think that much the same arguments being made against Mozilla's stance on this could be applied to say that you shouldn't port Firefox to non-free operating systems, like Windows or even MacOS. (Or, in extreme, even that you shouldn't port free operating systems to machines that don't have entirely free firmware and entirely open hardware design.) You might strongly believe those arguments, but having free software (like Firefox, LibreOffice, The Gimp) ported to non-free operating systems has greatly increased the number of people using and aware of free software, and provides for ordinary people a transition path to using more free software and free operating systems. Even in the early days, porting gcc and GNU tools to proprietary Unixes prepared the way for Linux. For a long long time, free software will have to inter-operate with non-free systems. If we believe free software is a good thing, then we should work towards getting more people using and benefiting from free software. And that means providing transition paths for ordinary people, even though those paths might not be entirely "pure". This is going to be the work of decades. 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. I'm reminded of the saying, "It is permissible to walk with the Devil to get to the other side of the bridge." I think our efforts would be better spent working against DRM itself (and more important the distorted copyright system underneath it), rather than firing a shot at an ally who's made an uncomfortable (but in my opinion justifiable) compromise. Just my thoughts on the matter. If the letter represents the prevailing view of FSM, then at least it's giving those views an airing. — Smiles, Les.
On 29/04/15 22:42, Les Kitchen wrote:
Given the state of the world we live in, I think the Mozilla people have adopted a difficult but justifiable compromise — giving users the option of interacting with DRM if they choose, from a free-software browser, with sandboxing to minimize abuses.
I think that much the same arguments being made against Mozilla's stance on this could be applied to say that you shouldn't port Firefox to non-free operating systems, like Windows or even MacOS. (Or, in extreme, even that you shouldn't port free operating systems to machines that don't have entirely free firmware and entirely open hardware design.)
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.
You might strongly believe those arguments, but having free software (like Firefox, LibreOffice, The Gimp) ported to non-free operating systems has greatly increased the number of people using and aware of free software, and provides for ordinary people a transition path to using more free software and free operating systems.
I do agree. But in doing so, the ports are promoting free software. In Mozilla supporting EME, Mozilla is supporting DRM and Netflix.
Even in the early days, porting gcc and GNU tools to proprietary Unixes prepared the way for Linux.
Again, as it should be.
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.
If we believe free software is a good thing, then we should work towards getting more people using and benefiting from free software. And that means providing transition paths for ordinary people, even though those paths might not be entirely "pure". This is going to be the work of decades.
Why would we want to have free software assist people in a transition to DRM? Likewise, why do we want to make it easier for DRM providers to restrict people? With that sort of attitude, it'll take more than decades to complete our work - it will *never* be complete.
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.
I'm reminded of the saying, "It is permissible to walk with the Devil to get to the other side of the bridge."
And yet, there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.
I think our efforts would be better spent working against DRM itself (and more important the distorted copyright system underneath it), rather than firing a shot at an ally who's made an uncomfortable (but in my opinion justifiable) compromise.
Supporting DRM was a violation of its own manifesto, plain and simple. "Compromise" is a weasel word. If feels like Mozilla is more interested in being an ally on paper than through its actions. This can also be seen from other angles not discussed here, but supporting EME is the most blatant example to date.
Just my thoughts on the matter. If the letter represents the prevailing view of FSM, then at least it's giving those views an airing.
Of course. It's nice to hear from another perspective. Cheers, Adam
I'll put forward a view. It won't be based in a deep understanding of DRM or of software freedom. It is rooted in a little bit of history and a lifetime of being human. We've seen what large corporations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal#Copy-protection_software> and government entities <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Security_Bureau#2015_Edward_Snowden_surveillance_disclosures> will do to give themselves the illusion of control. And they've more than adequately shown that the satisfaction they gain from the strength of the illusion is far more important than any detrimental impact their actions may have. This is not news to us. We should be neither surprised or disgusted by these kinds of actions because they are normal human responses. The more power we have the more we wish to express that power. The more we express our sense of power the more we see we don't actually have any and so the more we pursue power. Take me for example. I'm using my computer and it gives me a sense of command and power. Having this sense of power I try to express it by doing powerful things with my computer. The more I try to do that the more I realise I am a million miles from truly commanding and controlling my computer. Upon this realisation I exert even more effort to give me more understanding and more tools so that I can have a heightened sense of command and power. etc etc. All I have to do is glance across the surface of my own history to see where I have shown the same pattern with money, resources, machines, tools, women, knowledge, relationships, and mini golf. My versions of it are fairly tame and inconsequential. When corporations and governments to it...fucking look out. It's never going to stop. Unless there are no human involved. So given it's just human nature and it's never going to stop, and therefore the work of FSF will never be done, what do we do to keep it in check? We call each other on our shit. We be fierce friends. Mozilla claim to be a stand for freedom and openness <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/>. Not just a little bit. It's like, their thing. But then in the background they've got some bullies fucking with them and now they're acting contrary to who they say they are. Imagine this. You tell me you've got a drinking problem and you're never going to drink again. You're Mr alcohol free now. If I, as your friend, then saw you out with some people smashing back a couple of scotch's and I *didn't *come over to you and say "Hey, I thought you were Mr Alcohol free? What the fucks going on man?" I'd be a bit of a low prick. I'd be what you call a fair weather friend. I don't keep fair weather friends because I can't trust them. I can't count on nice people. They do not have my best interests at heart. They are only interested in appearing to be friendly. Not actually being my friend. I only keep loud mouthed assholes as friends because I know who they are and what they stand for. Mozilla and FSF are both loud mouthed assholes and as a result they have been great friends. But right now Mozilla has got a drink in their hand and that funny look in their eye. And while it's ultimately Mozilla's choice to drink, it's plainly obvious that some "nice" prick has put it in their hand. If we are going to be their friend. Their real friend. Their fierce friend. Then we need to be prepared to get our toes smelly by putting our foot firmly up their ass and calling them on their shit. We'll probably have a falling out. They probably won't talk to us for a while. They'll get all indignant and mutter something about how freedom means being able to do what they want. The'll probably go off and have a great time with their new nice fair weather friends. But eventually they'll figure it out, and they'll miss having our foot in uncomfortable places. They'll remember who their real friends are. Or not. We have no control. But we can be unreasonable, uncompromising, real friends. Scott
On 30/04/15 21:14, Scott Junner wrote:
So given it's just human nature and it's never going to stop, and therefore the work of FSF will never be done, what do we do to keep it in check? We call each other on our shit. We be fierce friends.
Great perspective, and well said.
If we are going to be their friend. Their real friend. Their fierce friend. Then we need to be prepared to get our toes smelly by putting our foot firmly up their ass and calling them on their shit.
We'll probably have a falling out. They probably won't talk to us for a while. They'll get all indignant and mutter something about how freedom means being able to do what they want. The'll probably go off and have a great time with their new nice fair weather friends. But eventually they'll figure it out, and they'll miss having our foot in uncomfortable places. They'll remember who their real friends are.
Or not. We have no control. But we can be unreasonable, uncompromising, real friends.
You cracked me up (to the point where laughter almost woke my wife up) - this was easily one of the most amusing posts I've ever read on this list. But it's so true! So true. :) -Adam
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.
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 11:01:55AM +1000, Les Kitchen wrote:
Thanks, Adam, for your helpful response.
Any time. :D
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015, at 00:37, Adam Bolte wrote:
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.
...
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.
No worries. I look forward to hearing what you have to say if you come up with additional arguments or decide on a different conclusion.
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.
I think it safer to be clear and strict when discussing such things. If you read the thread I recently linked to regarding firmware and microcode, and how the Linux kernel started off with probably good intentions by accepting small strings that were only to initialise low level hardware, you might understand my reasoning. Ultimately without strict rules in place, this approach left the situation to be expanded upon and ultimately we now have firmware included in the Linux kernel that's bigger than older versions of the Linux kernel, and under a very restrictive license. If they just said "sorry, microcode and firmware is never getting in our kernel" from the start, I expect more hardware designs would have paid considerable attention to the issue before it became a problem, and the Linux Libre project would never have been necessary. I don't know for certain if Torvalds regrets his decision, but it would be very hard to change his stance on the issue now if he did.
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.)
Original BSD, Modified BSD, FreeBSD, X11, WTFPL, etc... I'm not a fan of any of those. Although this is an over-simplification, I feel the GPL protects the user, whereas those other kinds of licenses aim to protect the developer (less worry about compatibility, patents, free to perform Tivoization, etc.).
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.
Perhaps it would help if you were able to illustrate some examples where a free software project deliberately supported DRM, which resulted in long-term benefits to free software overall (aside from situations where it prompted a fork by a 3rd party)? I don't think I can think of anything like this, but perhaps I'm just not thinking hard enough. Cheers, Adam
Ben M <PuZZleDucK+softwarefreedom@gmail.com> writes:
Thanks for the feedback for our "Day Against DRM" letter to Mozilla. I have made a new revision based on that and have posted it to the wiki.
I have revised the whole letter, not changing the structure or meaning, but cleaning up the grammar and making shorter, punchier sentences. Hope the changes are an improvement. -- \ “Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they | `\ believe me?” —Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney
participants (6)
-
Adam Bolte -
Ben Finney -
Ben M -
Ben Sturmfels -
Les Kitchen -
Scott Junner