>First, Mozilla has and does assist in the creation of FOSS game engines and tools
Parent comment didn't imply the contrary. "stop promoting nonfree software" doesn't mean "stop only promoting nonfree software".
>even the LGPL shows that absolute avoidance is not always the best thing to do regarding closed-source code
If you ask the FSF, the LGPL should really be used as a last resort. Unity is not too common yet (and hopefully will never be as long as it remains proprietary), so I don't see why we should push it forward by helping its integration. Same goes for HTML5's EME. I'd rather have a purely open platform with less features and popularity than a platform with an open base and countless incompatible binary blobs sitting onto it. And even the abomination that EME is would at least be an actual standard.
>Unity engine is a proprietary codebase, they also have lots of code that is FOSS
If you can't build it, it's not worth integrating. The only thing this is good for is making a FOSS alternative (although I guess they keep the important bits secret). I'd be using Google Chrome if "99% open source" was good enough. By using Firefox (though Chromium would be fine if it weren't for the user-hostile features), I precisely want to keep a clean FOSS platform. Conversely, I only use an Android ROM because there's no good alternative, which is not the case for Unity. So I wish they'd keep it out for now.
I get where you're coming from, I think, but Unity is not related to standards in any way, unlike EME. Unity is just another game engine that can now run on the web. All we did here is help them along the way, just like we help other game engines to port to the web. It is not going to become a standard or part of the browser in any way.
Even with Unity (and Unreal and others) porting to the web, web browsers remain open, while web content (what ported Unity is) was always non-open (since practically all websites are not FOSS).
I agree with you on the other hand that EME would in fact be a danger to the openness of the web.
I know, I mentioned it. I believe a standard at least has some practical positive impact, unlike the integration of a particular closed platform.
>web content was always non-open
It's true that obfuscated JavaScript makes, in a way, a closed platform, but much less so, in my belief, than straight-up binary code (which Unity delivers and EME enables).
I get your overall point, but it just seems a slippery slope...
Parent comment didn't imply the contrary. "stop promoting nonfree software" doesn't mean "stop only promoting nonfree software".
>even the LGPL shows that absolute avoidance is not always the best thing to do regarding closed-source code
If you ask the FSF, the LGPL should really be used as a last resort. Unity is not too common yet (and hopefully will never be as long as it remains proprietary), so I don't see why we should push it forward by helping its integration. Same goes for HTML5's EME. I'd rather have a purely open platform with less features and popularity than a platform with an open base and countless incompatible binary blobs sitting onto it. And even the abomination that EME is would at least be an actual standard.
>Unity engine is a proprietary codebase, they also have lots of code that is FOSS
If you can't build it, it's not worth integrating. The only thing this is good for is making a FOSS alternative (although I guess they keep the important bits secret). I'd be using Google Chrome if "99% open source" was good enough. By using Firefox (though Chromium would be fine if it weren't for the user-hostile features), I precisely want to keep a clean FOSS platform. Conversely, I only use an Android ROM because there's no good alternative, which is not the case for Unity. So I wish they'd keep it out for now.