Nat Tuck writes ("Re: Missing source in firefox-esr: EME module"):
> All that gets a bit off topic for why I started this thread on debian-legal.
> Currently, the Firefox package *logically* bundles this component in a way
> that's clearly intended to dishonestly circumvent the DFSG. Papering over the
> issue with UI changes just feels like doubling down on that dishonesty.
I think you are missing something very important.
Namely, you have failed to appreciate that this is a *political*
problem. It needs a political solution. You will not get this
problem fixed by simply stating your opinion, and your reasons, on
this list (on in bug reports).
> Your proposal of simply changing the text is effectively trying to convert
> DRM *into* an addon.
I can definitely see that way of looking at it. To my mind it would
make the problem less severe.
> I don't think it's appropriate to start by simply changing the messages since
> that doesn't solve the majority of the problem, but it would make the issue
> seem less urgent.
Well, that is a question of political tactics. Personally I think it
is not a good look to refuse to help mitigate a problem because you
want the problem to be more obviously bad for tactical reasons.
I tried to help by suggesting possible starting strategies. You don't
need to agree with me. But in order to effect any change here you
will need to build a coalition of opinion sufficient to force a change
in Debian's approach.
I think the problem with proprietary addons offered by software in
Debian is a significant one, which we should address head-on. If we
did that then users who are concerned with their own software freedom
will easily be able to avoid both this DRM code, and proprietary
addons. Ie, solving the problem of addons would solve your firefox
problem.
That's why I wrote this:
> > Problem 3 is awkward because in Debian we do not have a consensus
> > understanding of when it is appropriate for a package in main to
> > download and run proprietary software. I think this will require a
> > General Resolution to fix, but necessary groundwork involves figuring
> > out what behavioural profiles users want, and trying to align those
> > behavioural profiles to our existing archive areas.
Feel free not to take my advice.
But I am afraid that your current approach is doomed. You seem to
have come to -legal to try to use it as a lever to fix #837091. But
-legal has no authority.
Maybe you came here to drum up support. That got you engagement with
one potential ally, namely me. But you have responded by arguing with
me about semantics and details, rather than looking for common ground
and trying to develop a political strategy. So I am not encouraged
:-(.
Regards,
Ian.
