4 ms·

> What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most user

> What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. The people who care about the "Open Web" and DRM know about open source software and the people who don't care, don't know about Open Source software precisely because they don't care. > if, for example, my bank's website started requiring a DRM-capable browser. Open source doesn't address that problem. That's the banks property (website, servers, etc) you have no say in how they run it, if they go and do something stupid like require DRM to visit their site and you don't want DRM you have to switch banks. You made the choice to not use DRM, so you have to face the consequences of your choice. The bank made the choice of requiring DRM and they have to live with the consequences of customers switching banks. Open Source software was never meant to control others property.

pdonis 9y ago
> if they go and do something stupid like require DRM to visit their site and you don't want DRM you have to switch banks. But if every bank--or at least every bank I would possibly consider entrusting my money to--requires DRM, because DRM is the standard and all the major browsers use it and the bank doesn't want to go to the trouble of inventing all their own infrastructure just to avoid using DRM, then what bank do I switch to? > Open Source software was never meant to control others property. Exactly. So Open Source software does not address the problem I said it does not address. So we are in agreement on that point. Good. But you were saying, in the post I originally responded to, that Open Source software will somehow prevent the web from becoming effectively a closed system. That would only be the case if Open Source software did address the problem that you and I both agree it does not address.

pdonis 9y ago

> if they go and do something stupid like require DRM to visit their site and you don't want DRM you have to switch banks. But if every bank--or at least every bank I would possibly consider entrusting my money to--requires DRM, because DRM is the standard and all the major browsers use it and the bank doesn't want to go to the trouble of inventing all their own infrastructure just to avoid using DRM, then what bank do I switch to? > Open Source software was never meant to control others property. Exactly. So Open Source software does not address the problem I said it does not address. So we are in agreement on that point. Good. But you were saying, in the post I originally responded to, that Open Source software will somehow prevent the web from becoming effectively a closed system. That would only be the case if Open Source software did address the problem that you and I both agree it does not address.