Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

[Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net>]

On 15/05/14 04:43 PM, Ralph Katz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Free Software Foundation statement may clear some confusion expressed on
> this list.
>
> https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mozilla-and-adobe-to-support-digital-restrictions-management
>
> > [...] "Only a week after the International Day Against DRM, Mozilla
> > has announced that it will partner with proprietary software
> > company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital
> > Restrictions Management (DRM) in its Firefox browser, using
> > Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).
> >
> > The Free Software Foundation is deeply disappointed in Mozilla's
> > announcement. The decision compromises important principles in
> > order to alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser
> > marketshare. It allies Mozilla with a company hostile to the free
> > software movement and to Mozilla's own fundamental ideals.
> >
> > Although Mozilla will not directly ship Adobe's proprietary DRM
> > plugin, it will, as an official feature, encourage Firefox users
> > to install the plugin from Adobe when presented with media that
> > requests DRM. We agree with Cory Doctorow that there is no
> > meaningful distinction between 'installing DRM' and 'installing
> > code that installs DRM.'  [...]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTdSb9AAoJECe2FpioHXO6KfEH/1PvYl/dvu4mbWbBXJQn19qW
> u/9Eao+ffnWfEOR5okvwVy0zAbWr28imOVJS3SVX23D527shfPjke7sY8jagozor
> tH4me+yij9vir1yN5s0jcRMRXpPhyYVpu39NGYPhDE8i8IhET9XHEKQOcH5ggIDb
> lnMd/emZS5dLNJ3/6rpviDY6i7MX+Ebto3mAVEG8/KGMjKe+G+rN5xMq6TyY4ule
> +BwpDMIUewmQC0nQs0SmB14/B8dj+DF8CNpnj+oB1rTSg459MwAKVt6+o1I/DEif
> +CtpoJtqMJfKa2Ux14gtISDQq0YUulRu8qyM3n6W3DLc/JMnh5o2QyiqjGA6+Ww=
> =X7L4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that 
freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was 
not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free 
software while it accepts digital restrictions management.

Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was 
allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" 
to choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be 
called ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being 
bandied about in this discussion as if it made any sense.

The Free Software Foundation got this one right.