Algunos links que circulan en Internet en español: * http://bitelia.com/2014/05/drm-firefox * http://alt1040.com/2014/05/mozilla-drm-firefox
y el triste post en el blog de Mozilla. * https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/ On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Diddier Hilarion <diddierhilar...@gmail.com > wrote: > El artículo original que referencia el post de la FSF > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow > > algunos apartados que me parecieron importantes. > > ...This is crucial, because the Adobe module is not only closed source, it > is also protected by controversial global laws that threaten security > researchers who publish information about its security flaws. > > These laws – the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the European EUCD, > Canada’s C-11 and so on – prohibit revealing information that can be used > to weaken DRM, and previous security researchers who disclosed information > about vulnerabilities in DRM have been threatened and prosecuted. > > This created a chilling effect on the publication of vulnerabilities in > DRM, even where these put users at risk from hackers. For example, when > word got out that Sony BMG had infected millions of computers with an > illegal rootkit to stop (legal) audio CD ripping, security researchers > stepped forward to disclose that they’d known about the rootkit but had > been afraid to say anything about it. > > This gap between discovery and disclosure allowed the Sony rootkit to > become a global pandemic that infected hundreds of thousands of US military > and government networks. Virus writers used the Sony rootkit to cloak their > own software and attack vulnerable systems. > > The inclusion of Adobe’s DRM in Firefox means that Mozilla will be putting > millions of its users in a position where they are running code whose bugs > are illegal to report. So it’s very important that this code be as isolated > as possible. > > By open-sourcing the sandbox that limits the Adobe software’s access to > the system, Mozilla is making it auditable and verifiable. This is a much > better deal than users will get out of any of the rival browsers, like > Safari, Chrome and Internet Explorer, and it is a meaningful and > substantial difference. ... > > > ... There are other ways in which Mozilla’s DRM is better for user > freedom than its commercial competitors’. While the commercial browsers’ > DRM assigns unique identifiers to users that can be used to spy on viewing > habits across multiple video providers and sessions, the Mozilla DRM uses > different identifiers for different services. > > And unlike the commercial browsers’ DRM, the Mozilla implementation does > not intentionally leak any information about the user’s system or its > configuration to video services. ... > > > ... Like many of Mozilla’s longtime supporters, I hold it to a high > standard. It is not a for-profit. It’s a social enterprise with a mission > to empower and free its users. ... > > > > y la discusión técnica que se ha formado en slashdot > > > http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/05/14/1744233/how-firefox-will-handle-drm-in-html > > Éxitos. > > > 2014-05-14 18:47 GMT-05:00 Andres Ricardo Castelblanco Mendoza < > acas...@fsfla.org>: > >> Interesante alianza en contra de nuestras libertades. >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Free Software Foundation <i...@fsf.org> >> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:30 PM >> Subject: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support >> Digital Restrictions Management >> To: Andres Ricardo Castelblanco Mendoza <acas...@fsfla.org> >> >> >> *You can read this post online at https://u.fsf.org/xk >> <https://u.fsf.org/xk>.* >> FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital >> Restrictions Management >> >> BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA — Wednesday, May 14th, 2014 — In response to >> Mozilla's announcement that it is reluctantly adopting DRM in its Firefox >> Web browser, Free Software Foundation executive director John Sullivan made >> the following statement: >> >> "Only a week after the International Day Against >> DRM<https://defectivebydesign.org/dayagainstdrm/>, >> Mozilla has announced that it will partner with proprietary software >> company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital Restrictions >> Management<https://defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management>(DRM) >> in its Firefox browser, using Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). >> >> The Free Software Foundation is deeply disappointed in Mozilla's >> announcement. The decision compromises important principles in order to >> alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser marketshare. It allies >> Mozilla with a company hostile to the free software movement and to >> Mozilla's own fundamental ideals. >> >> Although Mozilla will not directly ship Adobe's proprietary DRM plugin, >> it will, as an official feature, encourage Firefox users to install the >> plugin from Adobe when presented with media that requests DRM. We agree >> with Cory Doctorow that there is no meaningful distinction between >> 'installing DRM' and 'installing code that installs DRM.' >> >> We recognize that Mozilla is doing this reluctantly, and we trust these >> words coming from Mozilla much more than we do when they come from >> Microsoft or Amazon. At the same time, nearly everyone who implements DRM >> says they are forced to do it, and this lack of accountability is how the >> practice sustains itself. Mozilla's announcement today unfortunately puts >> it -- in this regard -- in the same category as its proprietary competitors. >> >> Unlike those proprietary competitors, Mozilla is going to great lengths >> to reduce some of the specific harms of DRM by attempting to 'sandbox' the >> plugin. But this approach cannot solve the fundamental ethical problems >> with proprietary software, or the issues that inevitably arise when >> proprietary software is >> installed<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html>on a user's >> computer. >> >> In the >> announcement<https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/>, >> Mitchell Baker asserts that Mozilla's hands were tied. But she then goes on >> to actively praise Adobe's "value" and suggests that there is some kind of >> necessary balance between DRM and user freedom. >> >> There is nothing necessary about DRM, and to hear Mozilla praising Adobe >> -- the company who has been and continues to be a vicious opponent of the >> free software movement and the free Web -- is shocking. With this >> partnership in place, we worry about Mozilla's ability and willingness to >> criticize Adobe's practices going forward. >> >> We understand that Mozilla is afraid of losing users. Cory Doctorow points >> out<http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow>that >> they have produced no evidence to substantiate this fear or made any >> effort to study the situation. More importantly, popularity is not an end >> in itself. This is especially true for the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit >> with an ethical mission. In the past, Mozilla has distinguished itself and >> achieved success by protecting the freedom of its users and explaining the >> importance of that freedom: including publishing Firefox's source code, >> allowing others to make modifications to it, and sticking to Web standards >> in the face of attempts to impose proprietary extensions. >> >> Today's decision turns that calculus on its head, devoting Mozilla >> resources to delivering users to Adobe and hostile media distributors. In >> the process, Firefox is losing the identity which set it apart from its >> proprietary competitors -- Internet Explorer and Chrome -- both of which >> are implementing EME in an even worse fashion. >> >> Undoubtedly, some number of users just want restricted media like Netflix >> to work in Firefox, and they will be upset if it doesn't. This is >> unsurprising, since the majority of the world is not yet familiar with the >> ethical issues surrounding proprietary software. This debate was, and is, a >> high-profile opportunity to introduce these concepts to users and ask them >> to stand together in some tough decisions. >> >> To see Mozilla compromise without making any public effort to rally users >> against this supposed "forced choice" is doubly disappointing. They should >> reverse this decision. But whether they do or do not, we call on them to >> join us by devoting as many of their extensive resources to permanently >> eliminating DRM as they are now devoting to supporting it. The FSF will >> have more to say and do on this in the coming days. For now, users who are >> concerned about this issue should: >> >> - >> >> *Write to Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal and let him know that you oppose >> DRM <a...@mozilla.com>*. Mozilla made this decision in a misguided >> appeal to its userbase; it needs to hear in clear and reasoned terms from >> the users who feel this as a betrayal. Ask Mozilla what it is going to do >> to actually solve the DRM problem that has created this false forced >> choice. >> - >> >> *Join our effort to stop EME approval >> <https://defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5> at the W3C*. While >> today's announcement makes it even more obvious that W3C rejection of EME >> will not stop its implementation, it also makes it clear that W3C can >> fearlessly reject EME to send a message that DRM is *not* a part of >> the vision of a free Web. >> - >> >> *Use a version of Firefox without the EME code*: Since its source >> code is available under a license allowing anyone to modify and >> redistribute it under a different name, we expect versions without EME to >> be made available, and you should use those instead. We will list them in >> the Free Software Directory <https://directory.fsf.org>. >> - >> >> *Donate to support the work of the Free Software Foundation >> <https://u.fsf.org/xi> and our Defective by Design <https://u.fsf.org/xh> >> campaign to actually end DRM.* Until it's completely gone, Mozilla >> and others will be constantly tempted to capitulate, and users will be >> pressured to continue using some proprietary software. If not us, give to >> another group fighting against digital restrictions." >> >> References >> >> - What is >> DRM?<https://defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management> >> - >> >> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/ >> - >> >> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ >> - https://defectivebydesign.org/dbd-condemns-drm-in-html >> - https://fsf.org/news/coalition-against-drm-in-html >> - https://defectivebydesign.org/oscar-awarded-w3c-in-the-hollyweb >> >> Media Contact >> >> John Sullivan >> Executive Director >> Free Software Foundation >> +1 (617) 542 5942 >> campai...@fsf.org >> About the Free Software Foundation >> >> The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting >> computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute >> computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in >> freedom) software -- particularly the GNU operating system and its >> GNU/Linux variants -- and free documentation for free software. The FSF >> also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of >> freedom in the use of software, and its Web sites, located at fsf.organd >> gnu.org, are an important source of information about GNU/Linux. >> Donations to support the FSF's work can be made at https://donate.fsf.org. >> Its headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA. >> -- >> >> Follow us on GNU social <https://status.fsf.org/fsf> | Subscribe to our >> blogs via RSS <https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS> | Join us as an associate >> member <https://www.fsf.org/jf> >> >> Sent from the Free Software Foundation, >> 51 Franklin Street >> Fifth Floor >> Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1335 >> United States >> >> Unsubscribe<https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/mailing/unsubscribe?reset=1&jid=130055&qid=7774030&h=dbd6d213acf87ceb>from >> this mailing list. >> >> Stop all >> email<https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/mailing/optout?reset=1&jid=130055&qid=7774030&h=dbd6d213acf87ceb>from >> the Free Software Foundation, including Defective by Design, and the >> Free Software Supporter newsletter. >> >> >> >> -- >> Andrés R Castelblanco M >> >> FSFLA Board Member >> http://www.fsfla.org/ >> >> Sigueme en: >> http://identi.ca/kronos >> >> FLISOL Colombia 2012 >> http://installfest.info/FLISOL2012/Colombia<http://installfest.info/FLISOL2011/Colombia> >> >> GNU/Linux user number 401832 >> don't learn to Hack, HACK to learn >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lista de correo de Colibri >> Colibri@listas.el-directorio.org >> http://listas.el-directorio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/colibri >> http://slcolombia.org/Colibri/UsoLista >> http://slcolombia.org/Colibri/ContratoSocial >> >> El Directorio, el sitio del Software Libre en Colombia: >> http://www.el-directorio.org >> > > > > -- > Diddier A Hilarion B. > > > _______________________________________________ > Lista de correo de Colibri > Colibri@listas.el-directorio.org > http://listas.el-directorio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/colibri > http://slcolombia.org/Colibri/UsoLista > http://slcolombia.org/Colibri/ContratoSocial > > El Directorio, el sitio del Software Libre en Colombia: > http://www.el-directorio.org > -- Andrés R Castelblanco M FSFLA Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Sigueme en: http://identi.ca/kronos FLISOL Colombia 2012 http://installfest.info/FLISOL2012/Colombia<http://installfest.info/FLISOL2011/Colombia> GNU/Linux user number 401832 don't learn to Hack, HACK to learn
_______________________________________________ Lista de correo de Colibri Colibri@listas.el-directorio.org http://listas.el-directorio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/colibri http://slcolombia.org/Colibri/UsoLista http://slcolombia.org/Colibri/ContratoSocial El Directorio, el sitio del Software Libre en Colombia: http://www.el-directorio.org
