2 ms·
I do not care. Even if DRM was magic and perfectly prevented piracy, it's not appropriate in the web. We're in a situation where it's intentionally impossible t
by mort96 4y ago
I do not care. Even if DRM was magic and perfectly prevented piracy, it's not appropriate in the web. We're in a situation where it's intentionally impossible to write an open-source browser which can render any standard web page. That's not an acceptable state of affairs.
EDIT: Wow, I didn't expect "it should be legal to make an open source web browser which can render any standard web page" to be so controversial. I'm disappointed.
- charcircuit 4y agoDRM is only unable on audio and video tags. You can still render the rest of the page. Often sites will gracefully fallback onto a lower quality version of the content if you don't support DRM. You could also just use widevine from your open source browser to play it.
- mort96 4y agoI'm not sure why you are telling me this. It is correct (aside from typos), but doesn't affect what I said. FYI, widevine is not open source.
- charcircuit 4y agoWidevine isn't a browser. Similarly running GNU bash on Windows doesn't suddenly make GNU bash no longer open source even though it is calling out to closed source code.
- mort96 4y agoAn open source browser can not render standard web pages. A browser can either be open source and unable to render DRM content, or it can contain closed-source components and be able to render DRM content. Firefox + Widevine is the second kind, Firefox without Widevine is the first kind. It is illegal to make a fully open source browser which can render any standard web page.
- nerdbert 4y agoThat's missing the point, I think. The HTML spec includes elements that cannot be rendered using open source software. Yes, of course other parts of the page can be rendered (at least today) but it's absurd for them to claim that they are supporting open standards.