open source

Posted May 19, 2014 7:19 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205)
In reply to: open source by fandingo
Parent article: Firefox gets closed-source DRM

"The strangeness only comes from lumping Mozilla and Adobe into one entity. Mozilla is developing an open source CDM, which users are allowed to modify to their heart's content. Adobe is developing a closed-source EME and has decided to only make that work with approved CDMs and approved versions of those CDMs. "

They are acting as one entity. The only purpose of the CDM is to facilitate the EME. So it's certainly not Free Software and it really sounds like a violation even by the considerably less strict Open Source definition as well.

open source

Posted May 19, 2014 16:12 UTC (Mon) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link] (4 responses)

No, they aren't. Mozilla distributes the sandbox, and Adobe distributes the closed-source plugin.

open source

Posted May 19, 2014 17:50 UTC (Mon) by lsl (subscriber, #86508) [Link] (3 responses)

What practical difference does that make? Even the Mozilla people seem to acknowledge that this situation is much more due to legal requirements than being a philosophical decision of "we don't ship proprietary software or DRM". Firefox is still going to nag you to download and install that blob.

I'm highly curious to see the actual dialog.

open source

Posted May 19, 2014 18:47 UTC (Mon) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link] (2 responses)

Do you have the same problem with NSAPI that's been used for ages to allow Flash to work? It's the exact same sort of open source "sandbox" (not really a sandbox but an API plugin).

Firefox will only nag users to install Adobe's CDM if the user visits a site that has content that requires a CDM. That's exactly how it currently behaves with Flash. This situation doesn't strike me as any different than how it currently works, and if it means a more focused, smaller blobs, that seems like a good thing. Not the best thing, but better than now.

open source

Posted May 19, 2014 20:14 UTC (Mon) by lsl (subscriber, #86508) [Link] (1 responses)

EME's sole purpose is to facilitate DRM. That's not the case for NPAPI which has other uses. In fact, on the computer I'm writing this the only NPAPI plugin installed is free software (IcedTea-Web).

Please note that I'm not saying I know better what Mozilla should or shouldn't have done. I don't. But let's be honest here: Mozilla shipping DRM infrastructure amounts to major defeat.

It's obvious that proliferation of EME leads to competitive disadvantages of non-mainstream platforms for which no CDM will be made available. I still have my doubts that even in Mozilla's/Adobe's implementation Linux will be a fully supported (read: can play HD content) platform, to not even mention other, less widely used, operating systems. What about other future user agents developed by teams other than the established few? Now all the major browsers (including Firefox) ship with DRM, giving it the appearance of an universally supported (and accepted) "feature".

The W3C even considering something like EME in its current incarnation is just ridiculous.

open source

Posted May 20, 2014 11:32 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

> The W3C even considering something like EME in its current incarnation is just ridiculous.

Considering? Didn't they already give it a stamp of approval?