SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mozilla Firefox 38 has been released. It adds the <picture> element, Ruby annotation support, and Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), a form of digital rights management for HTML5 video. It also automatically downloads Adobe's Primetime Content Decryption Module (CDM) on 32-bit versions of Firefox on Windows Vista and newer Windows systems. The Register reports:
The nonprofit grudgingly agreed to add EME support to Firefox last year, despite the vocal objections of both Mozilla's then-CTO Brendan Eich and the Free Software Foundation. "Nearly everyone who implements DRM says they are forced to do it" the FSF said at the time, "and this lack of accountability is how the practice sustains itself."
Nonetheless, Mozilla promoted Firefox 38 to the Release channel on Tuesday, complete with EME enabled – although it said it's still doing so reluctantly. "We don't believe DRM is a desirable market solution, but it's currently the only way to watch a sought-after segment of content," Mozilla senior veep of legal affairs Danielle Dixon-Thayer said in a blog post.
The first firm to leap at the chance to shovel its DRM into Firefox was Adobe, whose Primetime Content Delivery Module for decoding encrypted content shipped with Firefox 38 on Tuesday. Thayer said various companies, including Netflix, are already evaluating Adobe's tech to see if it meets their requirements. Mozilla says that because Adobe's CDM is proprietary "black box" software, it has made certain to wrap it in a sandbox within Firefox so that its code can't interfere with the rest of the browser. (Maybe that's why it took a year to get it integrated.)
The CDM will issue an alert when it's on a site that uses DRM-wrapped content, so people who don't want to use it will have the option of bowing out. If you don't want your browser tainted by DRM at all, you still have options. You can disable the Adobe Primetime CDM so it never activates. If that's not good enough, there's a menu option in Firefox that lets you opt out of DRM altogether, after which you can delete the Primetime CDM (or any future CDMs from other vendors) from your hard drive. Finally, if you don't want DRM in your browser and you don't want to bother with any of the above, Mozilla has made available a separate download that doesn't include the Primetime CDM and has DRM disabled by default.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:20PM
I thought by definition that Open Source == Free Software, but Free Software doesn't necessarily mean Open Source. What is the rationale behind Open Source != Free Software?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:59PM
gcc, gdb and emacs were at one time gplv2. Linux has always been gplv2.
gcc, gdb and emacs are free software but not open source. linux is open source but not free software.
As Richard describes it, the purpose of open source is efficiency whereas the purpose of free software is to build a community.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:03PM
Open Source == Freedom and Free Software == Free Enough?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:26PM
Consider that Apple at one time was an active developer of GCC, GDB and the like.
When the FSF introduced the GPLv3, Apple so much objected to its provisions regarding software patents, it spent quite likely tens of millions of dollars on the development of clang, llvm and lldb. While the UIUC versions are Open Source, I have absolute no doubt that Apple has forks of them whose source is never released.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:35PM
So, the big stink is that RMS wants the corporations to release the source code of their forks. Or at least to make it so that they have to share the changes they make to the source code of Free Software.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:44PM
> Or at least to make it so that they have to share the changes they make to the source code of Free Software.
Yes. If you take from commons you must give back to the commons.
In the case of Apple there is history. The original Objective-C compiler was built on gcc. Jobs really, really, really did not want to release the source code for their changes. He eventually caved but it was a pretty big fight at the time.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:53PM
If you don't already know that then you don't know much about the history of free software.
It happens that Apple ported GCC to the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop in 1989, so it could generate 68k binaries for System 6.5 and the development builds of System 7. But it never released its patches, it wasn't specifically required to because it didn't distribute its build of MPW GCC.
Stallman is very adamant that we should have the source code to all the software we use, and that we should be free to alter that source code in any way we please.
That specifically means that he has always advocated that we should have the source code to Microsoft Windows, the Oracle database, the space shuttle firmware etc.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:54PM
At first glance having access to all source code sounds like a great idea, but certain things just wouldn't work out. Why would I pay $50 for the next installation of Civilization, if I could get it for free? Handing out the source code to a game is essentially giving the game away for free for anyone and everyone. Perhaps there should be some sort of required after X years you must provide the source code to your software. Software becomes obsolete rather quickly, but then I would almost guarantee that some companies would find ways to work around it. Sure we'll give you the source code, but we'll make sure to scramble that code up something good. Having the source code to everything isn't "The" answer. In some cases the source may have even been lost by now. Which may be a very good case to require a source code release after a certain period of time.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.computer.ultima-dragons/b9wF43xJxog/ [google.com]
" Bill Armintrout
11/20/96
char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew D. Charlton) wrote:
>bi...@2ni.com (Bill Armintrout) wrote:
>>I don't know if it was archived.
>I find it hard to believe that anyone would just throw it out...
Believe it or not: At the end of Serpent Isle (with add-on), the
company forgot to archive the game. There is no source code. It's
gone.
- Bill"
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 15 2015, @01:17AM
You're confusing free as in beer with free as in speech. According to the terms the GPL they needn't provide the source free to anyone who wants it (seriously, go look it up). They can charge you money to buy the game, then send you the source as a part of the deal.
There is, of course, the problem of somebody just posting the source after buying the game.
You're right--having source code isn't *the* answer. It is however a pretty big one.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday May 15 2015, @05:35PM
from the very start Richard said it was OK to sell free software; I don't recall clearly but that may have even been in the GNU manifesto.
Again IIRC the source code only need be made available to those who have the binaries. In GPLv2 at least, it is insufficient to make it available over the Internet; Richard once made the point that someone with the binary might not have Internet access.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday May 15 2015, @05:39PM
I don't have a clue what happened. I've always been good about backups.
In one case my company was acquired. The new owners couldn't find my source. As best they could tell, someone taped over the backups.
In the case of the code used for my senior thesis, it disappeared however I expect I could rewrite it from scratch. I may even know where a backup is.
Apple lost the source code to the daisywheel printer driver. "But there's no Mac daisywheel printer driver!" you protest. Well that's because they lost its source.
Acius hired a consultant to write a word processor as a companion to its lucrative 4D database. There was some dispute, the consultant kept the only copy of the source.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:30AM
The other way around. After all, aren't Microsoft, Oracle, etc. releasing stuff as "open source" now? Only when you look at the license agreement it ends up being
*open source if you squint real hard, and you can't actually use this for the reasons you wanted it to be open in the first place
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:24PM
Backwards.
gcc etc. is free software AND open source. Open source does not imply free (libre), but all free software must be open source. It is advocating the open source development model without the freedom for the user that RMS and others in the free software movement object to.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @11:08PM
the simple availability of source code, or a license that is listed among the free software licenses, doesn't make a piece of software open source.
Linus Torvalds is quite emphatic that Linux is Open Source, but not Free Software.
Richard Stallman is even more emphatic that Emacs is Free Software but not Open Source.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:59PM
gcc, gdb and emacs are free software but not open source.
lolwut? The GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Debugger, and GNU Emacs are all: free/libre, free/gratis, and open source. GNU's definition of "free software" includes this:
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
The section saying "study, change, and improve" implies open source code.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:40AM
"Open Source" is a "Term of Art". Look "Term of Art" up in a legal dictionary.
If open source and free software were the same thing, then Linux would not have gone apeshit when someone on the lkml happened to mention that Linux was free software.
The reason I am being so pedantic about this is precisely because the distinction is poorly understood. Yes I readily agree that the words "open", "free", "source" and "software" are confusing in this discussion. Perhaps we could define new terms; "Foocode" is what the Open Source Initiative promotes, while "Barcode" is backed by the FSF.
The list of Foocode and Barcode licenses, to the best of my knowledge, are precisely identical, all the licenses in one way or another provide source. Yet Foocode and Barcode are completely different things.
The distinction is the reason one chooses the license, not the license itself, nor it is the simple availability of source code.
If you don't believe me, you can ask the experts, they'll confirm it: rms@gnu.org and esr@catb.org
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Friday May 15 2015, @07:19AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @03:32AM
Some open source licenses are quite restrictive. Free software licenses guarantee you four fundamental freedoms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:15AM
Ask another expert (Bruce Perens), and he'd agree with my position.
Sounds like you missed this https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html [debian.org]
( Perens: It's Time to Talk about Free Software Again )
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Thursday May 21 2015, @08:02AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:22PM
You got that backwards. All free software is open source, but open source software isn't necessarily free (libre) software.
Corporate types wanted to use the successful development model the free software advocates had created, but profit, control, etc., so they came up with open source. Same development model, but without any implied freedoms for the user. In some cases quite hostile.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:30PM
the simple fact that all the source code is readily available, doesn't mean that free software is open source.
Consider that if you heat coal, all the volatile ingredients will burn off, to produce coke, which is commonly used to refine iron ore.
That you can convert coal into coke, doesn't yield a refreshing soft drink.
I was referring to the open source as defined by Eric Raymond.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Wednesday May 13 2015, @11:05PM
Then the corporate types wanted to exclude programmers from the successful software so they came up with systemd to make it complex and thus increase reliance on corporate salary powered cube office automatons.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:27AM
You'd have to look up some of the things RMS has written (he has a big FAQ page somewhere) to figure out the difference. IIRC it's mostly a philosophical one.
Linux (the non-GNU foundations) was put under GPL for convenience, whereas GNU products were put under GPL for ethical reasons. To oversimplify the matter, that's why RMS is banging on about GPLv3 and Linus doesn't want to bother getting everyone to relicense everything from v2.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"