Re: Will Iceweasel stay open source?
On 16/05/14 05:56, Eelis wrote:
> 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.
No. Wrong again.
Reply to: