The opening discussion on Sir Tim Berners Lee gave me more perspective on the debate of the W3C and DRM. People have pointed out before [0] how much of a disap

The opening discussion on Sir Tim Berners Lee gave me more perspective on the debate of the W3C and DRM. People have pointed out before [0] how much of a disappointment it is that TBL allowed EME to be legitimised. But it's really hard to see the founder of the web (one of my main initial inspirations) being legitimately shown as an enabler of large corporate greed. Forgive the analogy, but the best way I could think of it was the free software and an open web as a kind of resistance movement. The French resistance for example did many things that did no good as the Nazis just powered through anyway. But the point of each resistance fighter is to inspire the next. If one of the founders of the movement suddenly steps aside and lets the Nazis do what they want on the basis that they would anyway then it's a massive blow. Dodgy analogies aside, I wish TBL was as uncompromising as RMS. [0]: https://defectivebydesign.org/blog/response_tim_bernerslees_defeatist_post_about_drm_web_standards https://defectivebydesign.org/blog/response_tim_bernerslees_...