Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM Firefox Mozilla

Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox 403

Posted by Soulskill
from the we're-shocked dept.
New submitter ptr_88 writes: "The Free Software Foundation has opposed Mozilla's move to support DRM in the Firefox browser, partnering with Adobe to do so. The FSF said, '[We're] deeply disappointed in Mozilla's announcement. The decision compromises important principles in order to alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser market share. It allies Mozilla with a company hostile to the free software movement and to Mozilla's own fundamental ideals. ... 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2014 @08:12PM (#47028689)

    Truly, we got an offer we couldn't decline.

    • by perpenso (1613749) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:03PM (#47028975)

      Truly, we got an offer we couldn't decline.

      Many successful FOSS projects are corporate sponsored or subsidized, so corporations are going to be able to provide direction.

      The days of volunteers controlling things are long gone for many large and/or successful projects.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:26PM (#47029059) Homepage Journal

        Many successful FOSS projects

        So doesn't this mean that someone could just fork Firefox without the DRM?

        As corporations co-opt FOSS, it's all gotten so confusing for me.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:52PM (#47029209)

          I know of at least three forks; Pale Moon, Cyberfox, and Waterfox. I know the Pale Moon author has no plans to add DRM, but I'm not sure about the other two.

          • by savuporo (658486)

            They are effectively "browser distros" from the brief look - and we need more popular versions of them. And you missed IceWeasel, IceCat, Wyzo, SwiftFox ..

        • by jopsen (885607) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Saturday May 17, 2014 @10:43PM (#47029471) Homepage

          Many successful FOSS projects

          So doesn't this mean that someone could just fork Firefox without the DRM?

          DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe, and it can be enabled/disabled by the user.
          No need to fork... that's way too much work...


          Most likely this is just like flash plugin, except the API surface will be smaller, the module will be better sandboxed, there will be real security and work to ensure users privacy (Andreas CTO at Mozilla promised this in his blog post on the topic).
          With some luck this will allow us to kill flash and silverlight... a well encapsulated module is certainly less evil.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe, and it can be enabled/disabled by the user.

            I'm pretty sure the endgame for the major content providers is to close that loophole.

            Mozilla is big enough that they could have fought this. The endgame of having the largest user base is not as important as their original manifesto of building and maintaining a free and open browser.

            So that's OK. Somebody else will do it and Mozilla will be the next Opera. You know, the thing a relatively small number of

            • by nabsltd (1313397)

              DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe, and it can be enabled/disabled by the user.

              I'm pretty sure the endgame for the major content providers is to close that loophole.

              What loophole? If the user disables the DRM module, then they can't view/hear anything that uses DRM. I don't see why content providers would care if someone "turns off the TV".

            • by silviuc (676999) on Sunday May 18, 2014 @02:46AM (#47030105) Homepage
              The last time Mozilla stood their ground on the H.264 format do you remember what happened? Yeah, you'd find that most HTML5 videos did not work and one would have to resort to using flash. Their move was irrelevant since every other major browser had support for it (Safari, IE, Chrome)...

              So yeah, tone down the "they are big enough" speech... past "experiments" prove they are not "big enough".
          • by tero (39203)

            DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe

            What could possibly go wrong?!

          • by Spamalope (91802) on Sunday May 18, 2014 @01:58PM (#47032765)

            the API surface will be smaller, the module will be better sandboxed, there will be real security and work to ensure users privacy (Andreas CTO at Mozilla promised this in his blog post on the topic).

            Real security from Adobe? Bwahahah! Name an Adobe security success in the past decade!

            And we'll get user privacy from the zombie tracking cookie company? Adobe actively opposes privacy as a business! Either your not too bright, or your a shill taking us for morons.

      • The Pale Moon version of Firefox appears to have better management than Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

        Pale Moon Windows version [palemoon.org]
        Pale Moon Linux version [sourceforge.net]

        Here are some of the advantages:

        1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

        2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search. A small UI detail like that is not, in itself, as important as the fact that Mozilla Foundation could make such a careless mistake.

        3) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. [mozilla.org] I use Restartless Restart. [mozilla.org]

        4) Pale Moon management is independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. [palemoon.org] The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

        Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.

        More information about Pale Moon: See the Pale Moon FAQ [palemoon.org]. Here is a quote:

        "As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser -- having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."

        Pale Moon migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool [palemoon.org].

        Questions about Firefox:

        The management of Firefox is apparently looking for ways to abuse users so that it can make more money. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans [slashdot.org]. Apparently Firefox management wanted to adopt that method of abuse and found that it wasn't possible. This story we are reading now: Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox [slashdot.org] discusses another example.

        Have you seen $311,000,000 of yearly development of Firefox? Mitchell Baker [wikipedia.org] is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.

        See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions [mozilla.org]. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."

        Who gets the money? How it is spent? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe .01 cent? It's easy money, pai
        • by cbreak (1575875)
          Bullshit. I use Firefox since years, and it has been 64 bit for ages. Also, it rarely crashes (I think the last time it crashed for me was some time last year, but really, don't remember details). The main source fore restarts are the high-frequency updates.
          • by cbhacking (979169)

            Futurepower should have clarified: there's no 64-bit Windows build of Firefox. You can make one yourself, if you've got the know-how and the tools, but it's quite unofficial.

            As you point out, the code is perfectly 64-bit clean and runs fine in 64-bit mode on other platforms. There's no *good* reason that Windows users are still stuck with 32 bits.

    • That sums it up precisely.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:18PM (#47029025)

      Somehow, they discovered that their previous CEO, who had made it clear that he would absolutely refuse to put DRM in Firefox, had made an embarrassing political donation, and forced him out of the company.

      • by BZ (40346) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @10:09PM (#47029297)

        You're mischaracterizing Brendan's position on DRM, as I'm sure he would tell you if you just asked him personally. I strongly recommend you do so.

        He doesn't like DRM, and neither does anyone else at Mozilla, but you do realize that he was CTO and then CEO while most of the negotiations with Adobe were happening, right?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Here's Eich's blog post from October, 2013. [brendaneich.com] Let me quote one of his comments on it -

          DRM is about gaining leverage over "playback devices" and ultimately "users" in order to jack prices a bit higher, a bit longer Ã" but not so long as to tip things to darknets too much. YouÃ(TM)re right that all "robust" DRM schemes are cracked, rapidly. ItÃ(TM)s clearly not about preventing copying.

          and

          a mission to do X with the Web, without hundreds of millions of users loving the products upholding that mi

      • by rev0lt (1950662)
        I still remember when Firefox was Firebird (no, not the database) or whatever. The barebones web-light version of Mozilla suite. And their goal wasn't implement everything under the sun AND the kitchen sink in a browser, but steer away from it. I guess they grew up. I blame Google's money :D
    • Truly, we got an offer we couldn't decline.

      That is not true. Please, don't make accusations like that without evidence!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2014 @08:22PM (#47028755)

    Firefox adopting DRM is not what is allowing the practice to continue, it is people consuming it. If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did. Until users decide not to view DRM content, the practice will continue, with or without Firefox.

    What Firefox is doing is making the hard choice to be flexible and give users the opportunity to view the content or not, they are empowering their userbase to make the choice. Sadly, this means Firefox values user choice more than the FSF. I don't like DRM and I do not plan to view DRMed content, but many people will and if Firefox wants to survive they need to give their users that choice.

    • by bmo (77928) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @08:44PM (#47028887)

      If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did."

      So?

      It's not their /job/ to do that. It's their job to make a F/OSS browser. It's in their fucking "Mozilla Manifesto"

      DRM isn't Free. They have failed. And to somehow justify it by saying "someone else will do it anyway" is schoolyard "logic"/ rationalization.

      --
      BMO

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by lgw (121541)

        If you don't like DRM, don't consume it. But stop trying to take away my freedom to do so, thanks.

        • by ifiwereasculptor (1870574) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:30PM (#47029089)

          If you don't like DRM, don't consume it. But stop trying to take away my freedom to do so, thanks.

          Look, I don't care much about ideological debates, but could we stop with the nonsensical wording? How exactly does one "consume" DRM? You can perhaps take advantage of, support, view content which makes use of DRM. That's all fine. But please don't "consume" DRM. You can't, not anymore than you can "consume" highways or the history of Somalia.

          On a minor note, I should also point out that being against Mozilla implementing DRM support on Firefox does not "take away your freedom" to view content which makes use of DRM. Unless you're forced by someone or something to use solely Firefox for viewing all your movies or something like that, in which case you should probably reconsider the focus of your digital freedom fighting.

          • by tepples (727027)

            Unless you're forced by someone or something to use solely Firefox for viewing all your movies or something like that

            Consider the case of streaming a rented video to a Firefox OS phone. One is forced to either use DRM in Firefox, buy a different phone, or not watch the video that one paid to rent.

            • Or install a different OS on the phone or watch the video on a TV or run the video through analog & back before attempting to stream it, or ... But, unless one was surprised by a sneaky automatic update, one probably knew the score before considering to spend money on renting a video. One could pocket the money & visit slashdot instead.
              • Or install a different OS on the phone

                A lot of device manufacturers lock the bootloader to cut warranty support costs.

                or watch the video on a TV

                HDCP.

                or run the video through analog & back before attempting to stream it

                HDCP. Or are you referring to pointing a camera at the screen?

                One could pocket the money & visit slashdot instead.

                Where people will say "turn in your geek card" [slashdot.org] to someone who shows ignorance of particular movies.

                • If HDCP is going to stop you from watching a video you rented on your TV, how is it not going to stop you from streaming that same video to your phone via DRM-free Firefox?
          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by lgw (121541)

            Ah, obsessive literalism on /. - I never saw that coming!

        • Stop taking away the freedom to encourage systems that take away your freedom? You are supporting the freedom to restrict the freedom of others, but not the freedom to not support supporting the freedom to restrict the freedom of others? How can logically defend that position?
      • by jopsen (885607)

        So?

        Mozilla have always had a practical approach... This is nothing more.
        This is no worse the binary plugins like flash, silverlight and Googles VLC-based (I think) DRM infected plugin (used by HBO in Europe).
        Seriously, this is the less evil.

    • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:06PM (#47028989)

      If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did.

      Why would they even bother? I think it far more likely that they would simply put in a "We're sorry, but your browser is not supported at [service] at this time. Please consider using Google Chrome, Microsoft's Internet Explorer or Apple Safari. Our apologies for the inconvenience."

      Given the choice between e.g. watching the latest episode of a show, or.. well.. not, guess what most people are going to do, even if you have made the dangers of DRM clear to them.

      The reason is apathy... those dangers have simply not yet materialized in any way that it has truly affected people. DRM server for an 8-year old game goes down? "Well I wasn't really playing it anymore anyway." Can't save/record Netflix content and after a while you find out that the show they used to have, they no longer have, and so you can't continue watching it? "Oh well, what else is on..."

      The FSF can, and should, condemn Mozilla all they want for being pragmatic; the FSF cannot be thus. But Mozilla can, and should, lest FireFox becomes increasingly marginalized. Now if the FSF could convince Apple, Google, Microsoft to not include DRM schemes...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:14PM (#47029013)

      Your missing the point, and the problem. Nobody is saying users should be prohibited or prevented from installing digital restrictions software. What we're saying is Mozilla shouldn't be encouraging, or enabling it. Rather they should be discouraging users from using it. Words like “spyware” and “malware” should be used to describe these anti-user digital restrictions systems.

      The user should not be forced to give up control, security, and privacy just to accommodate an industries interests in making greater profit. Largely this profit is made via deception, not via preventing piracy using digital restrictions. Pirates will continue to be able to pirate regardless of widespread us of digital restriction systems.

      However what digital restrictions do is hand over more and more control to the companies that be of users systems and use of the legitimately purchased goods. As an example if I purchased software in 1990 I'd generally be able to install it on any system I owned. I didn't have to re-purchase the software when I bought a new computer. Nor did I have to tell the entity anything about myself.

    • by Rosyna (80334)

      If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did..

      That's why flash and silverlight continue to exist now (even though MS abandoned Silverlight)

    • by PopeRatzo (965947)

      If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did. Until users decide not to view DRM content, the practice will continue, with or without Firefox.

      Whatever other people decide to do, I don't knowingly view DRM content in my home. There's no need. There's so much good content that doesn't have DRM, that I doubt I'll ever miss it.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      Until users decide not to view DRM content, the practice will continue, with or without Firefox.

      its not that simple when what you want to consume is DRMized, with no (viable) alternative.

    • If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did.

      They aren't directly supporting DRM, and this will entail a proprietary tool, so why should the Firefox team waste resources on this?

    • by trparky (846769)
      Basically it's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. No matter which way you go, you're damned. *shakes head*
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2014 @08:27PM (#47028781)

    I've contacted the CTO at agal@mozilla.com about this on behalf of my company and let him know that Firefox's one core advantage over all the other major browsers has been it's strong stance on freedom. More people need to speak up if there is any hope to effect change though.

    If Mozilla gives up its users they've got nothing left to offer. They need to stop following Chrome and Microsoft in a downward spiral. Copying Google & Microsoft's bad ideas and practices is not how you become loved. No, it's these types of bad practices which caused users to abandon those other major browsers in the first place and move to Firefox.

    It's time for Mozilla to take charge and lead again. Show its users it's got what it takes to stand up for its users. With the right choices people might actually begin to respect the browser maker again.

    Any perceived gain is not worth the moral loss.

    • by NotInHere (3654617) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:07PM (#47028993)

      First, I am against DRM. I think it restricts fair use and innovation, is spyware, and defends obsolete business models.

      But what Mozilla did was a good step. Almost every browser in the wild ships with a flash plugin. Flash is worse than any CDM.

      I think EME improves current situation, when some websites don't rely on flash anymore.

      Most DRM is a rootkit, and not a honest software which balances the content owner's and the users interests. The sandbox approach from Mozilla is very non-intrusive in comparison to other DRM systems, and other EME browsers. I never liked installing any DRM software on my computer, as I give it full access to my system, and I will never be abled to distinguish its behaviour from malware. But when the sandbox really is as restrictive to the blob as it should be, I will probably even use the DRM.

      This step of Mozilla will make some content owners accept less intrusive DRM, which is good.

      • by reub2000 (705806)

        Flash is no longer required to play video on many websites. Most youtube videos currently play in the html5 player. This is just a step backwards.

    • lol, they wrote a wrapped for another companies plugin. That's it. You don't have to use or install the DRM. All they're doing is giving you a "Safer" way to install it. They're taking lemons and making lemonade. This idea that open software shouldn't be open to closed software is misguided and arrogant. The one thing open source needs to avoid is giving corporate management the idea that when they use open source they're going to be somehow pigeon holing themselves. It needs to be REALLY open. Eventually p

  • Missing Point. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Can't we just compile a version without EME? I mean Stallman should have just pointed that at least Firefox is truly free unlike IE, chrome and others whilst reminding us that we can just recompile sans EME. This is yet another case of failure withing the Free community; Destruction without ensuring the core values are witheld.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The Free Software Foundation want's Mozilla to stop enabling companies from taking away control from the user. These companies have malicious intent and putting up pirating as it presents a reasonable explanation as to the "need" of these systems. Digital restrictions don't actually prevent pirates from pirating content. It's that simple.

      If all the major browser vendors succumb to an easy to use digital restriction mechanism. We're all going to be negatively impacted even if the browser we use don't enable

      • by tepples (727027)
        Without digital restrictions management, how would you recommend to enforce a time limit on watching a video? Most people aren't going to want to pay a "purchase" price (such as $20) to watch a movie once.
        • Building a business model around time limits requires you to take rights away from the consumer. You can't justify online video "rentals" if they cannot be built transparently.

          • by tepples (727027)

            Building a business model around time limits requires you to take rights away from the consumer.

            Consumers have shown themselves willing to give up those rights, as shown by the success of video rental stores dating back to Family Video.

      • The Free Software Foundation want's Mozilla to stop enabling companies from taking away control from the user.

        Even if Mozilla did not support DRM, other browser makers would sufficiently enable companies to take away control from users.

  • by ConstantineM (965345) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @08:39PM (#47028863)

    So funny. Just a few short years ago, Mozilla explicitly declined to support H.264 on Windows, even if there was a free native plugin, since it'll partition the Linux users.

    And now they're deciding to support DRM, just to keep the market share?

  • by Guspaz (556486) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:08PM (#47028997)

    Firefox would suffer a large drop in market share if they refused to support features that a significant portion of their userbase would consider critical. Being known as "that browser that doesn't work with Netflix" isn't the road to success.

    If you don't like DRM, that's fine. The average joe doesn't care, and he's going to drop a browser in a heartbeat if it's stopping him from watching House of Cards or whatever other content he wants.

    • by fafalone (633739) on Sunday May 18, 2014 @01:16AM (#47029897)
      Maybe they need to stop putting marketshare above all else? It's bad enough how every version is progressively dumbing down the UI in an attempt to attract mainstream users. They did just fine long before they had the marketshare they do today. And they sure as hell didn't get off the ground by marketing to the non-technophile masses.
      Are there benefits to increased marketshare? Absolutely. But when did that become the most important factor in designing a web browser?
      • Marketshare is crucial for a browser that stands aside from all others in the market with its own rendering engine. If its market share falls into single digits, websites will simply stop being tested against it. And regardless of what anyone says about standard-conforming HTML and CSS, the hard truth is that without such testing, websites still do break even in this day and age. Do you want Firefox to be like Opera, the browser that struggled hard against getting regularly broken by popular websites (like

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2014 @09:10PM (#47029005)

    Most people’s reaction to the Mozilla & DRM debacle makes me want to firmly and repeatedly smash my head against my desk. I’ll outline why:

    1. People who can’t (be bothered to) read

    Most of the criticism comes from people who haven’t been bothered to go and read what Mozilla’s written about the issue (or just suck at it). If these people had, we’d have no complaints of Mozilla forcing users to use DRM, bundling propitiatory code, or ‘giving up’ on user’s freedom and rights.

    Essentially all that is happening is Adobe’s CDM is going to be implemented as an optional, monitored, special-type-of-plugin.

    I’d say it’s no different from Flash, but it is going to be different. It’s going to be more secure, and presumably less buggy (being a ‘feature’ of Firefox). Once Firefox implements EME, there’s really no reason for Flash or Silverlight to continue to exist. Sure, this setup sucks. But I think Flash sucks more.

    As for ‘giving up’: Mozilla can only be influential if it has influence. The primary source of Mozilla’s influence is the number of people using Firefox, which isn’t currently very big. Not implementing EME won’t help that. As others have said, this is not the hill to die on.

    This all leads nicely onto my second point:

    2. People who use Chrome

    One of the best Tweets I found on the issue was somebody threatening to switch to Google Chrome because of this. I think the irony here is clear.

    Yet, what astounds me more is not people threatening to switch, but people already using Chrome who want Mozilla to protect their rights.

    Google is a for-profit company which exists to exploit users data. It’s collaborated with the NSA. It’s helped to lead the charge with Microsoft and Netflix for EME. Why on Earth, then, would you give Google support by using Chrome?

    This may seem hypocritical from someone who uses Google’s services. Yet Google Search, Maps, Android (and so-on) are unparalleled. Chrome isn’t.

    The single easiest thing you can do to support Mozilla is to use Firefox. It gives Mozilla the influence it needs to fight.

    3. People who think Mozilla can single-handedly ‘change the industry’

    I hate DRM as much as the next guy and I think copyright is fundamentally broken - it’s why I’m a member of the Pirate Party, it’s why I donate to ORG and EFF, and it’s through these avenues I expect to see real change.

    Mozilla can only change the industry with user support. And users don’t care about DRM, they only care that video works. We clearly saw this with WebM and H.264.

    There’s work to be done, but it can’t be done if Mozilla loses its influence, and it can only be done with the support (not ire) of other organisations.

    Users want DRM. We should give them DRM. That doesn’t mean Mozilla supports DRM, and it doesn’t mean Mozilla can’t educate users about what DRM means (and there are some very good signs of that being bundled into Webmaker soon).
    In conclusion

    Don’t be disappointed in Mozilla.

    Be disappointed in Google, Microsoft and Apple for implementing this first, and backing Mozilla into a corner.

    Be disappointed in Netflix and its friends (including, surprisingly, the BBC!) calling for DRM.

    Be disappointed in your elected representatives creating an environment where it is potentially illegal to say specific things about DRM.

    Now go out, educate users about what DRM means, and why it’s bad. Use Firefox, and donate time or money to Mozilla to give it the influence it needs. Support organisations (such as EFF, ORG, FSF, FSFE) and political parties who represent your views on DRM and Copyright reform.

    This is by no means the end of the battle over DRM and Copyright - it’s just the beginning.

  • Here we go again. The usual FOSS battle between impossible idealism and pragmatism.

    If Firefox wants to allow for a plugin that enables DRM, what of it? The users can make their own choice. They're not including it in the browser.

    I know it's popular to pay lip service to the FSF but if they had their way we would all be hypocrites. Just posting on /. with all the evil minifed javascript would make us sinners. Of course, the FSF morals don't extend to it having qualms about taking [fsf.org] HP, Google and IBM di
  • There was a time when one used IE, but along came Mozilla. Mozilla proved more successfull because it was DRM intollerant. I guess I have to find a browser that is DRM intollerant; any suggestions?
  • loss of browser market share

    They'll lose market share for implementing DRM.
  • by ikhider (2837593) on Saturday May 17, 2014 @10:10PM (#47029303)
    Most do not understand about DRM, and that is what Mozilla is acting upon--complacency. Sure, you have a handful who understand the dangers of DRM, and why it is important to have a free internet and free open software but not enough. That is why Mozilla caves in, not enough users hold them accountable. Most of their funding comes from Google anyway. More need to be educated about this. When Stallman started the GNU operating system, their numbers were few. Now GNU is a bigger force. It may be time for another browser that respects the users' freedom. To Mozilla, I say, Fork You!
  • The decision compromises important principles in order to alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser market share.

    The iconic animated version of Let It Go [youtube.com] voiced by Idina Menzel is approaching 230 million views on YouTube --- all licensed Frozen content distributed through YouTube alone probably accounts for 500-550 million page views, with no end in sight.

    These are big numbers, and big numbers matter to Google ---

    which isn't paying the Moz Foundation $300 million a year for links to mass market content Firefox can't display, but its rivals can.

    The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. The original contract expired in November 2006. On 20 December 2011 Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at three times the amount previously paid, or nearly US$300 million annually.

    Mozilla Foundation [wikipedia.org]

  • The fact that I actually agree with the FSF's position is irrelevant. Why is it that, the only time the FSF gets into the news, it is when the organization is spouting "Negative Waves"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

    Need Mo' Positiv Waves.

    • by jopsen (885607)

      The fact that I actually agree with the FSF's position is irrelevant. Why is it that, the only time the FSF gets into the news

      Yeah... Of all the evils out there why does FSF choose to target Mozilla.. Instead of condemning the other players who implements DRM without any concerns about their users privacy...

      I'm no DRM fan, but a practical approach is usually better than closing your eyes and pretending not to see anything...

  • Chrome has nearly 50% of the browser market share all it itself... if Mozilla had just decided to not support it, then all it would accomplish by not implementing it is delegating itself to a future "unsupported browser" list... we'd be back to the good old days (sarcasm intended) when IE had a dominant market share and half of the websites out there wouldn't support anything else, except this time it'd be chrome and not IE that you'd have to have.
  • by Sarius64 (880298) on Sunday May 18, 2014 @05:21AM (#47030411)

    As with most things, there always seems to be hidden agendas.

    Why Brendan Eich had to Go [blogspot.co.uk]

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray

Working...