Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
I'd like to raise a few points on that concern, because they are a few
dark corners for me. I hope you can throw some light for me on this.
What's exactly the matter with supporting DRM? It means that they will
have to ship some closed source binary with Firefox so that DRM will
properly work in Firefox?
Coming from a perspective of software freedom and discussing this on an
FSF mailing list such as we are, it seems to me the situation should not
be framed in terms of the movement that doesn't support software
freedom. A "closed source"[closed] binary is a reference to the open
source movement, the very movement that has no problems abandoning their
own developmental methodology[abandon] when a sufficiently convenient
and powerful proprietary program is published. This abandonment is no
accident, as that movement was designed to not support software freedom
in the first place. As the FSF points out, "Most discussion of “open
source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and
success[...]".
If that's the case, what about letting the users the freedom to
choose? Distributions rebuild their Firefox (or equivalent), so they
can provide a DRM-free and a DRM-compliant release? I'm seeing this as
it could be done for Linux with non-free and free firmwares. Perhaps a
too naive approach?
The freedom to choose is a ruse. Choosing unethical behavior or choosing
power over others[power] (proprietary software certainly is the
proprietor asserting power over that program's users) is an attempt to
turn software freedom into merely another alternative[alternative] among
equally valid alternatives, thus dissuading anyone from thinking
non-freedom is an oppression.
I'd like to highlight some major point in the end: the user must be
free. That's IMHO the most important thing, and this shouldn't be
forgotten. Let's impersonate a Firefox end-user. They want to be able
to browse the web and visit sites that have an interest for them. This
might include Netflix for instance. And this requires DRM support.
Firefox doesn't have it and plans to have it. Why would we choose for
the user what's good or not? That's not free software.
Sometimes freedom requires a sacrifice. Your Netflix example currently
requires Free Software users to do without Netflix. This is a small
sacrifice anyone can make in the pursuit of software freedom.
Let's have the upstream developer do what he believes match the users
requirements. And let's just ask him possibility to eventually disable
such features if they don't match distribution/user philosophy.
What you propose here is indistinguishable from how proprietary software
already works. Users on MacOS or Windows can choose not to install
Adobe's DRM binary. And asking for "eventual" action is asking for
delaying one's software freedom.
The heart of this issue is not how much of a nuisance DRM is, nor
whether Adobe will publish binaries that run on one's preferred
GNU/Linux system. Those are minor technical distractions that fail to
address the freedoms all computer users deserve and how important it is
to consistently frame the issue around these freedoms in order to ensure
any real resolution is built by first respecting these freedoms.
[power]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html for explication
on how proprietary software is always power over users, never freedom.
[abandon]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
particularly the section titled "Different Values Can Lead to Similar
Conclusions…but Not Always" for how this abandonment occurs.
[closed]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Closed for more
on this.
[alternative]
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative for
more on this.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
