On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:38:52AM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rubén Martín > <nukea...@mozilla-hispano.org> wrote: > > * It's not the first time we take decisions because everyone else is > > doing it, and we want to keep being relevant. > > o This worries me the most looking at the future, since we are > > going to be always the only ones with completely different > > values to the rest of the players in the browser ecosystem. > > o Have we lost hope to be enough relevant to avoid these situations? > > It's not a question of absolutes. We don't have anywhere near as much > marketshare that we can call all the shots all the time. But that > doesn't mean that we don't have any influence.
Well, we should probably have some absolutes somewhere. Where I personally draw that line in the sand and where Mozilla does are a bit different, but that seems ok if we're all up front about it. > But there was a lot of pressure on the various actors here. And sadly > we don't have enough influence to prevent the badness in this > situation. And we didn't receive enough help from the larger internet > community. yeah, though I wonder if we could have helped make more people aware of the issue. On the other hand I'm not sure how much it helps to tell the public giving content providers and owners money when they require DRM is useful given the only other options are pretty bad. > Where was the internet outrage when Microsoft and Google implemented > this in their browsers? Where was the outrage towards Hollywood > studios asked for this? The fact that people at large simply let them > get away with this silently is ultimately what is forcing our hand > here. > > This is not that different from that we were ultimately forced to ship So, I actually feel more or less the oposite way about h264 mostly because it meets the DFSG requirements, demonstrated by Debian shipping it in the main part of there archive not the non free one. Sure it would be nice if people didn't need to worry about patents, but given that I believe they shouldn't exist in the first place its pretty hard to care about some abiguity in if something is patented or not. > h264 due to the very developers that we were trying to protect were > the ones that yelled at us for going our own way. What are you trying to say here? its not clear to me. > We can't do everything ourselves. As much as I wish that wasn't the case. > > And remember, just like with the video codec issue, just because we > lost in this instance doesn't mean that we've given up. We haven't yet > gotten all browsers to follow standards all the time, and all > developers to write user friendly websites all the time. But we > continue to make improvements. > > However as someone working with other browser vendors on a very > regular basis, I can definitely say that we do have enough marketshare > that we have a lot of influence. We are definitely able to make the > web a better place on a very regular basis. As an example, just the > other day we were able to negotiate a more standardized approach to > push notifications where other browser vendors were happy to do > proprietary solutions. This would not have been possible without the > influence that we have, and the hard work we put in. > > The decision today is an improvement over the NPAPI-based DRM > solutions that currently exist. We will continue to work on making the > next iteration better yet. Hopefully we will one day manage to rid the > web of DRM completely. it seems to me it's not all better and we shouldn't pretend it is, but it certainly has some benefits, and some of those are truely perverse e.g. now if you want to use DRM on the web not only do you have to pay off Microsoft and Adoby to get there DRM servers you need to pay Google and Apple, and you need to do that exactly because some bits aren't standardized. > > * We want to get rid of plugins but we implement something that always > > depends on an external and proprietary module. > > o It won't be impossible to access the full web using open source > > bits, since if we also agree on this, even people not using DRM > > right now are going to switch to it eventually. If you mean new content owners will require DRM I suspect your wrong because EME has managed to fragment the DRM provider space, and so make it more expensive. That said I'm kind of worried about providing a solution on linux, because I'm not sure if that means people who wouldn't have used Netflix or its ilk now will, or if it just means people would use Chrome if we don't do this. The answer to that game theory question seems clear for !desktop linux, but given the different views of the users of that platform and there overall greater technical ability I'm not entirely sure. Trev > > DRM is inherently incompatible with open source unfortunately. Not > just on a philosophical level, but also technically. I'll let others > comment here as I don't know enough details. > > / Jonas > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
