It doesn't need to last forever. This whole thing is opt-in, read: Firefox will be shipped without it and will ask you if you want to download and activate the plugin. If you don't use sites that implement DRM then there is no need for you to care at all.

Respectfully, I must disagree.

Whether or not it is opt-in or opt-out is not the problem, and certainly not the only reason for leaving it behind.

Putting support for proprietary, black-box, abusive and offensive code which is illegal for me to even look at, into my day to day, freedom-enabled computing environment is NOT OK. Making it "opt-in" does NOT make it OK.

It ultimately enforces on ALL of us the wishes and whims of a few entertainment oligarchs AS IF they were somehow "law" that we all agreed to! With each advance of that agenda, more and more of what is otherwise free as in FREEDOM will inevitably disappear behind that "opt-this" button...

That is NOT OK. I do NOT consent to that. Mozilla cannot consent on my behalf.

And if the only means I have to express my opposition is to live without newer Firefox, and ultimately without Firefox at all... then that is how it must be.

We can no more make peace with DRM than kids may make peace with a rattlesnake on the playground.

Just a question: Do you have Flash installed? Sounds like you would speak about that.

But anyways, nobody can force you to use services that are only accessible using a DRM plugin. If you want to use a service, DRM or not, you have to do it by the rules of the provider and can't simply circumvent those rules because of your idea of freedom.
It is simple as that: Vote with your money, don't use services that need DRM.

You did not consent to being offered the opportunity to consent?

Smells a little like bait... had I wanted to speak about flash I would have, but I didn't.

But if you are trying to equate flash with built in active DRM - that would be a stretch.

I ALREADY do not use DRM'd so-called services, but that is NOT the point.

The point is that Firefox will now come with a built-in sandbox designed specifically for a rattlesnake to play in, designed to the rattlesnake's own specifications, for the sole benefit of the rattlesnake. It facilitates breeding of the rattlesnake and greatly extends the territory of the venomous reptiles while marginalizing the more benign species.

It tells me that I can opt-out of actually putting the snake into my particular sandbox, but that I absolutely must accept the ready-for-use, snake-specified sandbox.

I do not consent to install the sandbox on my playground, and I have NOT been offered the opportunity to decline my consent to do that, other than not using snake-enabled Firefox.

Which was my point.

Flash has included DRM for years, so not really a stretch. It's also a plugin which is designed for mozilla browsers and which mozilla fully facilitate "plugins.notifyMissingFlash" being one such example.

google also jumped into bed with Adobe to provide the plugin integrated into their kind of FOSS browser...

It's FOSS being used to deliver a proprietary closed source payload which just undermines the whole point of running FOSS.

People should make their lives easier and just pay the money, install windows and they'll get all of this crap with minimal headache...

If you do not consent then there are only three ways to go:
- Go ahead, become a Mozilla developer and finally their head developer or CEO, so that you can steer the project in a direction you consent with.
- Go ahead, fork Firefox and remove the DRM stuff, like for example the Pale Moon project did.
- Use a different browser.

I wonder why you think that the Mozilla developers have to get your consent first for making changes in their project, it is not that you are a paying customer or something.

Which is what I said in my original post in this thread... so why all the discussion?

They are a flagship project of FREE software - read their own mission statements and review the history.

I have used it specifically, as have a great many others, unequivocaly because it embodied the generally agreed ideals of FREE software. That is a hugely important aspect of the relationship between them and their users, it is an overt part of the "agreement" between FREE software projects and their users and it carries a huge weight of both responsibility and benefit for both.

Flying the banner of FREE software brings them many benefits, along with many obligations to, and expectations from their users. In that sense, they do indeed need some measure of consent from their users.

They unilaterally broke that agreement without any frank discussion with their users. They say that they were "forced" into it, but then they and their apologists think that users have no right to feel forced as well, "Hey, you can opt out!".

But it is a huge capitulation, and loss, for the principles of FREEDOM, and FREE software. And for what? The profits of Netflix and a little perceived convenience for uncaring users.

Flash is evil, and since it has been asked - I do not install/enable it by default on my boxes (but I have added the plugin for some users, along with a lecture).

But still, installation of a third-party plugin which must work within a free interface is fundamentally different than the direct inclusion of a non-free interface built to third-party specifications with much broader applicability and consequences for everyone - particularly those who DO NOT use it!

But the topic of this thread, and more specifically the point I have tried to make is not about flash... so back to on topic points...

I agree. In fact, with the incluson of the built-in DRM support it CANNOT be called, FOSS any more, it is NOT Free and Open Source Software - the ideals of freedom have been dropped. So the "F" should be dropped from the acronym.

Perhaps it should be dropped from the Firefox name as well and replaced with D for DRM'd, we can call it Direfox. And the code becomes DROSS... much more appropriate.

You're resorting to the age old "it's free, shut the fuck up complaining or fork it" argument. It's as weak an argument as any other in this thread.

If Firefox is not for the users who download it and use it then what exactly is it for?

Same with any free software... and that's what Firefox was supposed to be from day one.

There are plenty of FOSS projects which don't resort to DRM and hosting google spyware, they seem to do ok...

You have no right to feel forced because you can opt out.

Did you happen to notice something called "Google Chrome" and its impact upon the number of Firefox users? Of course a browser is built for people to use that's exactly why the Mozilla team feel forced to do what they are.
Anybody who currently uses a non-free plugin to watch video will be lost to other browsers if the Mozilla team don't do what they have or something equally difficult conscience-wise.

Thats what i mentioned in comment 2: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...1/#post5172139

Drm is going to continue like a cancer because the RIAA and MPAA are so deeply imbedded in the government. Nothing will ever change about it. America has changed in the favor of the rich and powerful companies, and will not ever revert.

AT&T is 10x as big as when it was split up for being a monopoly. The goverment does nothing. Comcast is anti-competitive and is one of the biggest companies in the world. The government does nothing.

If you want DRM free videos, you will have to use a video camera to capture your television and save it to your library. As technology progresses, it will become more locked down,.. that's why the big players have bought stake in W3C, so they can have DRM included in the deepest layers of the internet. HTML5 is already slated to support DRM.

And the government does nothing.

Oh well. I'm giving up on the internet and movies anyway. Time to go to the library and get a book.

I agree. Sorry for not quoting you -- I meant to reply in agreement at hte time but I was pressed for time.

No worries. Wasn't complaining. Thanks though!