- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 18:45:11 -0700
- To: "'John Sullivan'" <johns@fsf.org>
- Cc: <public-html-media@w3.org>
John Sullivan wrote: > > Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> writes: > > > See > > https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of- > serv > > ing-users/ and > > https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and- > w3c > > -eme/ > > > > FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mozilla- > and-adobe-to-support-digital-restrictions-management > Cory Doctorow: > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed- > source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow > EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/mozilla-and-drm > What I don't understand is, given that there *are* Open Source browser engines out there, why doesn't the FSF, EFF and Mr. Doctorow band together and release their own, non DRM browser to the waiting millions who simply cannot live with an EME enabled browser? Talk is cheap y'all - why not actually do something beside whine in the press, and blame the W3C for the power of market forces? Or chastising Mozilla for accepting that without users, there is no money to make the payroll (what, you think all those engineers at Mozilla work for unicorn babies and rainbow dust?) JF
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 01:45:45 UTC