Re: Will Iceweasel stay open source?

[Eelis <eelis@eelis.net>]

On 2014-05-15 21:54, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 16/05/14 05:41, Eelis wrote:
> > On 2014-05-15 21:36, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > > On 16/05/14 05:20, Eelis wrote:
> > > > > > > Because there are no restrictions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No restrictions?
> > > > >
> > > > > That's correct. It's a sandbox. The sandbox restricts the close
> > > > > plugin. *You* are only restricted in how you can *playback* media
> > > > > encrypted by the plugin. *If* you choose to install it (and why
> > > > > would you?).
> > > >
> > > > The article talks about "preventing users from saving the content".
> > > > That's content that the closed-source CDM plugin decrypted and passed
> > > > on to Firefox, isn't it?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > > (sigh, it's 5:30am here, I'm tired)
> > > Perhaps the article and I haven't been clear - the sandbox is the big
> > > change. In itself all it does is restrict the plugin (protect *your*
> > > privacy from the closed source plugin).
> >
> > If the restrictions in the sandbox are for restricting the plugin, then
> > why would Adobe need to audit the sandbox source code to make sure
> > restrictions imposed on users are respected?
> Huh?  You know you answered your own question (well done!)
> "to make sure restrictions imposed on users are respected"
>
> To make sure we haven't modified the sandbox and t-ed the stream off to
> PirateBay where the companies lawyers make mountains out of molehills
> counting views as missed purchases.

Ah good, then we now at least agree that there are restrictions in the 
sandbox for restricting users. Which brings us nicely to the other 
thread, where we're trying to determine how the CDM can ensure that it 
is really running in an approved user-restricting-sandbox. :)