Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bobinson K B bobin...@gmail.com wrote: RESOLVED INVALID ! - now thats something absurd. You misunderstood, they have placed a link to their mailing list so that one could directly mail the governing body. Its invalid discussion in the bug tracker. ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
oh ok. My bad. Thanks. ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
RESOLVED INVALID ! - now thats something absurd. On 19 May 2014 14:55, Sunjith P S sunjit...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/05/14 2:46 pm, Pirate Praveen wrote: २०१४-०५-१९ १२:१७ [GMT]+०५:३०, Sunjith P S sunjit...@gmail.com: Being ethical or not is the user's freedom. I don't think ethical people developing and promoting ethical software should limit the user's freedom. User can install third party, closed source drivers and software on Ubuntu Linux. An ethical user can stick without installing/using unethical software. Giving users choice and recommending proprietray software are two differtent things. I hope they at least warn users about DRM and proprietary software https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1012219 Yeah, warning would be good. ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
Being ethical or not is the user's freedom. I don't think ethical people developing and promoting ethical software should limit the user's freedom. User can install third party, closed source drivers and software on Ubuntu Linux. An ethical user can stick without installing/using unethical software. On 16/05/14 10:21 pm, A. Mani wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Sunjith P S sunjit...@gmail.com wrote: Ultimately the user has the option. Mozilla is not forcing DRM on users. That is no excuse for facilitating DRM. Best A. Mani A. Mani [Last_Name. First_Name Format] CU, ASL, AMS, ISRS, CLC, CMS HomePage: http://www.logicamani.in Blog: http://logicamani.blogspot.in/ ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
२०१४-०५-१९ १२:१७ [GMT]+०५:३०, Sunjith P S sunjit...@gmail.com: Being ethical or not is the user's freedom. I don't think ethical people developing and promoting ethical software should limit the user's freedom. User can install third party, closed source drivers and software on Ubuntu Linux. An ethical user can stick without installing/using unethical software. Giving users choice and recommending proprietray software are two differtent things. I hope they at least warn users about DRM and proprietary software https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1012219 -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution. ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On 19/05/14 2:46 pm, Pirate Praveen wrote: २०१४-०५-१९ १२:१७ [GMT]+०५:३०, Sunjith P S sunjit...@gmail.com: Being ethical or not is the user's freedom. I don't think ethical people developing and promoting ethical software should limit the user's freedom. User can install third party, closed source drivers and software on Ubuntu Linux. An ethical user can stick without installing/using unethical software. Giving users choice and recommending proprietray software are two differtent things. I hope they at least warn users about DRM and proprietary software https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1012219 Yeah, warning would be good. ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Sunjith P S sunjit...@gmail.com wrote: Ultimately the user has the option. Mozilla is not forcing DRM on users. That is no excuse for facilitating DRM. Best A. Mani A. Mani [Last_Name. First_Name Format] CU, ASL, AMS, ISRS, CLC, CMS HomePage: http://www.logicamani.in Blog: http://logicamani.blogspot.in/ ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
What is an alternative for Mozilla to fight the battle of browsers which is now purely with Chrome vs all others now :-( ? For Adobe, since it has lost Flash, HTML5 is the sole solution to remain in the market. We have seen that the OS or solutions which are backed by profit oriented companies often wins - examples being Canonical, Opscode Chef, Ruby ( ~ RoR) Vs Python etc. May be a fork without the extensions is the way ? ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Bobinson K B bobin...@gmail.com wrote: What is an alternative for Mozilla to fight the battle of browsers which is now purely with Chrome vs all others now :-( ? For Adobe, since it has lost Flash, HTML5 is the sole solution to remain in the market. We have seen that the OS or solutions which are backed by profit oriented companies often wins - examples being Canonical, Opscode Chef, Ruby ( ~ RoR) Vs Python etc. May be a fork without the extensions is the way ? GNU Icecat http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net -- Regards Sameer Mohamed Thahir ___ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #ilugko...@irc.freenode.net
[ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
-- Forwarded message -- From: Free Software Foundation i...@fsf.org Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:31 PM Subject: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management To: Sameer Mohamed Thahir sameer.tha...@gmail.com *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 DRMhttps://defectivebydesign.org/dayagainstdrm/, Mozilla has announced that it will partner with proprietary software company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital Restrictions Managementhttps://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 installedhttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.htmlon a user's computer. In the announcementhttps://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 outhttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorowthat 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
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
Shame! Shame! Mozilla! We never expected such a shameful compromising notion from you. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Sameer Thahir sameer.tha...@gmail.comwrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Free Software Foundation i...@fsf.org Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:31 PM Subject: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management To: Sameer Mohamed Thahir sameer.tha...@gmail.com *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 DRMhttps://defectivebydesign.org/dayagainstdrm/, Mozilla has announced that it will partner with proprietary software company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital Restrictions Managementhttps://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 installedhttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.htmlon a user's computer. In the announcementhttps://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 outhttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorowthat 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
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
DRM, along with the automatic downloading of proprietary software! I never thought this would happen in Firefox. I hope it's easy to remove it for Abrowser. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Vazhappilly thomas...@gmail.comwrote: Shame! Shame! Mozilla! We never expected such a shameful compromising notion from you. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Sameer Thahir sameer.tha...@gmail.comwrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Free Software Foundation i...@fsf.org Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:31 PM Subject: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management To: Sameer Mohamed Thahir sameer.tha...@gmail.com *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 DRMhttps://defectivebydesign.org/dayagainstdrm/, Mozilla has announced that it will partner with proprietary software company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital Restrictions Managementhttps://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 installedhttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.htmlon a user's computer. In the announcementhttps://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 outhttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorowthat 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
Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Fwd: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
Hi All, It is sad news for all freedom lovers. Danial José On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM, G.T.RAO netwebst...@gmail.com wrote: DRM, along with the automatic downloading of proprietary software! I never thought this would happen in Firefox. I hope it's easy to remove it for Abrowser. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Vazhappilly thomas...@gmail.comwrote: Shame! Shame! Mozilla! We never expected such a shameful compromising notion from you. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Sameer Thahir sameer.tha...@gmail.comwrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Free Software Foundation i...@fsf.org Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:31 PM Subject: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management To: Sameer Mohamed Thahir sameer.tha...@gmail.com *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 DRMhttps://defectivebydesign.org/dayagainstdrm/, Mozilla has announced that it will partner with proprietary software company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital Restrictions Managementhttps://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 installedhttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.htmlon a user's computer. In the announcementhttps://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 outhttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorowthat 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
