If we had sane copyright durations (aka 28 years with possibility for an extension) then the music industry should have been forced to adopt the new technology and make music available more convenient, faster and cheaper. No, copyright is not to ensure a business practices through technological innovations and no, not to ensure profits.
If anything copyright durations should been shortened with each new technology, because the time-to-market gets faster and the costs are lower.
How many jobs does this insane copyright durations costs? How many new distribution technologies are killed because of lobbying of one stakeholder? How many innovations are not invented because of the not available public domain and not available fair use?
Isn't it good news for Android? Nikon will gladly pay Microsoft tax in a broken patent system, then to _not_ use Android. I mean, it would be bad news if the headline were: "Nikon drops Android faced with high costs because of patents from Microsoft". The way I read it: "Nikon pays Microsoft tax to stay with Android because it is worth it."
You can all discuss it if the Microsoft Tax is good or bad or that the patent system is broken or not. But that a company like Nikon pays to stay with Android says a lot of Android demand.
Are you fricking kidding me? Why is anything implemented in JavaScript an achievement now? So it's implemented in JavaScript, who cares.
I can't wait that the Mozilla developer offer a JavaScript API to modify the PDF, to offer some "dynamic" content in it. Now they open the attack vector that had Adope PDF Reader for ages.
You can do all of that today in Flash but nobody does it. Flash have an installer base of 90% of the web. Why would anybody start with WebGL now, if they could have done it with Flash 20 years ego? The reason is: nobody really need 3D.
3D will always remain second class (or last class) in a world dominated by 2D display technology. Come back with 3D stuff if you have a halfway working holodeck ala Star Trek. (even then I don't think anybody will go to a holodeck just for Streetview or Shopping [well, maybe shopping, but then you can just go to a real shop]).
Until a holodeck 3D does not really adds benefits. Sure you can have multiple views of items, but you can do that with a few pictures just as well (or even better).
I never understood why non-GPL drivers are a good thing. If you really think that way, why not just use MacOSX or Windows? If it is for hardware, then just don't buy hardware that don't have Linux support. Usually, Linux supported hardware is also of better quality, because the vendor cares about customers.
For example, the USB 3G modems. I only get one because Huawei have good Linux support. I do not miss that horrible mess what they have in Windows. In Linux it's just yet another network interface, and it just works. In Windows I need to install drivers, start a stupid application.
Or Mp3 players or cameras. I would never buy a player or a camera that is not a USB-Mass-Storage. To think to need some vendor specific software just to access my music or pictures is like a nightmare.
I'm in no way a kernel expert, I done some C and C++ programming. But if you want to expose kernel API to scripting language, why you don't just expose those kernel API to userspace?
Anything performance or memory critical should be still written in C, so just expose those API to user space and not only get the benefit that you can now use not only LUA but any other language, you get the benefits of separation between kernel and user space: security.
Just expose those API to userspace and offer a libnetbsd.so so that for example, LUA, Python, Ruby, etc. can use the kernel API. Why would the Netbsd developers limit it to just LUA? Or are they planning to add more script engines in the kernel?
Yes that's the fallacy of DRM. At some point you have to decrypt the content. Yeah you are right. If the path can go: Computer -> BCI chip -> Brain, one can shortcut it to Computer -> BCI chip -> Computer. But you do not own your hardware and the software, you can't do that.
That is what all DRM is pushing for: to deprive you of your property. Only if you don't own the software or the hardware you are using in your home can DRM work. Of course with software it's easier: you don't buy a copy of the software, you are just license it.
As far as I understood the EME the W3C will not define any particular implementation, but will provide an interface to Content Decryption Modules. Vendors can then set a key and the CDM will decrypt the content.
So basically it's the same as with codecs. The W3C failed to define a set of open codecs and they are not defining any particular DRM. I guess that means that the system or the browser will provide such CDM with the help of TPM and the W3C just provides a standard set of API to set keys and decrypt content.
The question that lies open before us is: given that DRM exists, should it be implemented through proprietary plugins or should it be possible to hook it somehow into the open web platform?
How it can be possible to have an open platform and to "hook" DRM in it? DRM and an open platform are a contradiction. Good, you can give me the keys and the encryption scheme of your DRM and ask me to "follow the rules" to not copy the data. Anything other then to ask me polity to not copy your movie with the keys and the encryption scheme you just gave me, will be a closed platform.
It's a difficult question in part because even if you have the clear goal that DRM should be eradicated — which you'll find is a view actually shared by many people who support EME (in this form or another) — there is no way to prove which path will most likely succeed in attaining that goal.
I do know what will not archive that goal: to accolade DRM to a W3C standard. How can you say that people are opposing DRM and are actively working on a DRM W3C standard?
It certainly seems to be the case that platforms that probably should have died a while back (e.g. Flash, Silverlight) survive to this day because they support DRM.
Yes and now you are working to bring this to the open web. Which is not possible in an open web anyway, because you can't give me the keys and the encryption scheme and expect any security. So you can just drop the DRM in the first place and give me the content unencrypted.
We can all make guesses, we can have intuitions, but if we're being honest there's no telling which strategy is most likely to succeed in either eliminating DRM or turning it into something that's user friendly.
So that is the true agenda. To hook DRM in the open web as much as the user is not aware of it? That means turn the control over to the content producers. So basically, he is admitting defeat to Flash and Silverlight and wants to incorporate proprietary components in the open web. But by that in the future if you want to see "premium content" (from W3C) you have to accept those proprietary components in your open browser.
So what was the goal again for the W3C? To replace Flash and Silverlight with W3C proprietary components? I guess that's where the money is made.
It's not encryption they are talking about, it's DRM. And they understand perfectly well DRM, that "open-source CDM (DRM) would have any hope of staying secure for any length of time at all". Yes, if you can't obfuscate the keys you can't hope to have any DRM.
PS: Also you are paying for DRM either you are using it or not. HDMI, DVDs, DVD players, TVs, mp3 players, etc. all implement DRM and you are paying for it.
That will all be changed by brain implants. Now we can ensure the trusted path: Internet, local Computer, HDMI connection, Monitor, Eyeballs. The monitor will output an encoded picture that the eyes will register and the brain implant will decode it to your occipital lobe Later it will erase any memory of the video if the producer set the broadcast flag.
Now the DRM from the cloud services will be standardize. That will give legislators only more excuses to push such laws as the DMCA, SIPA or SOPA. "The proposed law will only make compliance with the W3C Media Source Extensions more easier. You do want your Youtube videos, no?"
No it is possible: with legislation. That is why the BBC is calling for legal sanctions. This will result in invading your privacy at home just like any DRM:
However, the BBC is unlikely to be able to use any such mechanism unless we feel that it is sufficiently secure that there would be the possibility of legal action in the event of bypassing it.
Television is generally a more expensive medium than music to produce due to the amount of labour involved, and therefore for consumers to purchase. Business models that enable content to be available to them on a temporary (or rental) basis are usually able to do so at significantly lower cost than would be the case for permanent copies.
That is definite not true on the Internet. "Television" on the Internet is cheaper then permanent copies. Once the infrastructure is in place, you just pay for the bandwidth.
An example of this effect in action can be seen with the BBC’s iPlayer – by limiting the window of availability, the BBC is able to make content available for no additional fee to UK licence fee payers.
Yes because the current copyright model is broken. If the copyright terms were not astronomical high, the producers wouldn't be so greedy and would not impose artificial limitations by hiking up prices for unlimited availability. That is the only reason public entities like the BBC needs to artificial limit availability. There are no real cost in making a video available once or unlimited on the iPlayer.
We require the ability to securely identify a type of device, and enable or disable video playback based upon the answer.
Goodbye free operating system and free browsers. I can see a future where Mozilla needs to negotiate a license with the BBC (or any other producer) to be able to play their videos.
The ability to pass further restrictions to the graphics rendering path if available.
Goodbye your privacy, goodbye open source. Now every component needs to be verified that it is "trusted".
Instead, the high-quality video content that the broadcast industry produces will be made available only to closed devices and application stores where such security can be implemented.
It's just the same anyway. Either you close up the Web with DRM or you use closed solutions like Flash or Silverlight. What is the advantage for the Web again? There is no way under those conditions from the BBC that an open source browser like Firefox or open source system like Linux can operate.
For games, you can give away source code and sell the packaged product.
How I wish that would be the norm. For example with Sid Meyers Alpha Centauri. Such a great game. If only they would open up the source you could still play it for the next 50 years. It doesn't have to be the GPL, it could be a Non-Commercial license.
But the problem is a) they all too afraid that somebody will take the code and create a new game out of it. and b) they want you to buy the next new game instead of playing the good old ones.
That article lacks a lot of important information and also the very first sentence don't make any sense at all.
Commercial software going Open Source doesn't happen very often.
Commercial Software and Open Source Software are not orthogonal concepts. There are many Open Source Software that are commercial. For example RedHat Linux, MySQL.
The first question is what is "success"? You can take any software and re-license it under the GPL or BSD (if you have the copyrights). But what is your goal? What are you defining as "success"? Do you want more users, more money, more developers?
I guess the author wants more money. So if you are taking your product and offer it now for free, how are you suppose to make more money? The GPL do not forbid you from taking money for your product!
Going open source will bring you more developers, but only for some kind of projects. For example, a game engine will not bring you many new developers, just because game engines are normally very complex. A finished game is the same, games are complex and not many want to develop your game.
You can have more users with an Open Source license just by offering it as package for the Linux distributions. Maybe your software will get into the main repository and will be shipped with every copy of Ubuntu, Debian or some else.
You see, it's a very complex. You can't just go Open Source and except to get a shitload of money. Open Source is in the first to share information, not making money. Of course by sharing information you can get money.
The results were...disastrous. Within a very short period of time of going Open Source, the total funding for the projects fell to less than 20% of what was being brought in via sales when the software was Closed Source, which almost completely impeded the ability to fund continued development.
What a surprise. He offered his product for free and wondered why nobody is paying for it. If my baker tomorrow will offer their bread for free, why should I pay for it? Why didn't he made his stuff Open Source and sold it? Or sold a premium version that is Open Source for a higher price?
The Humble Indie Game Package was a success because there is a big market for DRM free and portable games. All gamers are just took in the ass from big publishers with rootkits, always-on, Windows-only, DRM-crap games. And then came Humble Indie Game Package. My only source of games is right now the Humbe Indie Packages and http://www.gog.com/
Makes perfectly sense. Software do not expire. The hardware can break, but software do not expire. So why would they replace a perfectly good working solution, just to gain what? Not needed mouse support?
The vendor is at fault for not remembering the most important feature of a software: consistency. If he would have, why not re-create the DOS interface, with the same keyboard shortcuts, but added mouse support and a little polish? I think most of the customers would appreciate the increased resolution, from 80x25 to 1920px (bigger font, better for the eyes, or more information).
The Google Docs is a very good example for what not do to in the browser. Sure it can open Odf files, but for what? The time when you need to pay 300$ or more for a good Document Writer are long over. LibreOffice or OpenOffice are at least 50 times more capable then Google Docs and are not depending on a good internet connection.
The problem with the midleware of Java is only because of the Browser (and Sun) developer. They chosen long ego to not support Java as good as Flash in the Web browser. My browser is becoming more bloated and bloated (I don't know why but since Firefox 18 the menus are now very sluggish and I conceder to switch to Chrome). Instead to re-implement everything again in the browser (and make the browser more bloated, more insecure and more of a monolithic monster).
In my futuristic world, Orcale and the browsers could come together and make Java a seaming-less experience. In my futuristic world you could have had 3D, canvas, storage, database, etc. as good as a desktop application already, if you could bind Oracle Java and browsers together. In Java all the stuff that Mozilla and Google trying to implement in their browsers is already there in a cross-platform and open source way (OpenJDK).
But that will never happen. Because Mozilla and Google want their own operating system, bypassing Apple and Microsoft. The W3C want to stick to HTML, DOM and JavaScript for everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster was the future, 12 years ego.
If we had sane copyright durations (aka 28 years with possibility for an extension) then the music industry should have been forced to adopt the new technology and make music available more convenient, faster and cheaper. No, copyright is not to ensure a business practices through technological innovations and no, not to ensure profits.
If anything copyright durations should been shortened with each new technology, because the time-to-market gets faster and the costs are lower.
How many jobs does this insane copyright durations costs? How many new distribution technologies are killed because of lobbying of one stakeholder? How many innovations are not invented because of the not available public domain and not available fair use?
Isn't it good news for Android? Nikon will gladly pay Microsoft tax in a broken patent system, then to _not_ use Android.
I mean, it would be bad news if the headline were: "Nikon drops Android faced with high costs because of patents from Microsoft".
The way I read it: "Nikon pays Microsoft tax to stay with Android because it is worth it."
You can all discuss it if the Microsoft Tax is good or bad or that the patent system is broken or not. But that a company like Nikon pays to stay with Android says a lot of Android demand.
Are you fricking kidding me? Why is anything implemented in JavaScript an achievement now? So it's implemented in JavaScript, who cares.
I can't wait that the Mozilla developer offer a JavaScript API to modify the PDF, to offer some "dynamic" content in it.
Now they open the attack vector that had Adope PDF Reader for ages.
Windows 7 does not have, too.
They have export to XPS, with a very user unfriendly dialog.
You can do all of that today in Flash but nobody does it.
Flash have an installer base of 90% of the web. Why would anybody start with WebGL now, if they could have done it with Flash 20 years ego? The reason is: nobody really need 3D.
3D will always remain second class (or last class) in a world dominated by 2D display technology. Come back with 3D stuff if you have a halfway working holodeck ala Star Trek. (even then I don't think anybody will go to a holodeck just for Streetview or Shopping [well, maybe shopping, but then you can just go to a real shop]).
Until a holodeck 3D does not really adds benefits. Sure you can have multiple views of items, but you can do that with a few pictures just as well (or even better).
I never understood why non-GPL drivers are a good thing. If you really think that way, why not just use MacOSX or Windows?
If it is for hardware, then just don't buy hardware that don't have Linux support. Usually, Linux supported hardware is also of better quality, because the vendor cares about customers.
For example, the USB 3G modems. I only get one because Huawei have good Linux support. I do not miss that horrible mess what they have in Windows. In Linux it's just yet another network interface, and it just works. In Windows I need to install drivers, start a stupid application.
Or Mp3 players or cameras. I would never buy a player or a camera that is not a USB-Mass-Storage. To think to need some vendor specific software just to access my music or pictures is like a nightmare.
MediaWiki is written in PHP. We should all include PHP in our kernels. PHP was chosen because of the easy of deployment, and popularity.
http://php.net/ - Introduction
I'm in no way a kernel expert, I done some C and C++ programming.
But if you want to expose kernel API to scripting language, why you don't just expose those kernel API to userspace?
Anything performance or memory critical should be still written in C, so just expose those API to user space and not only get the benefit that you can now use not only LUA but any other language, you get the benefits of separation between kernel and user space: security.
Just expose those API to userspace and offer a libnetbsd.so so that for example, LUA, Python, Ruby, etc. can use the kernel API. Why would the Netbsd developers limit it to just LUA? Or are they planning to add more script engines in the kernel?
That thing have over 90 screws. Certainly that disproves your theory.
Yes that's the fallacy of DRM. At some point you have to decrypt the content.
Yeah you are right. If the path can go: Computer -> BCI chip -> Brain, one can shortcut it to Computer -> BCI chip -> Computer.
But you do not own your hardware and the software, you can't do that.
That is what all DRM is pushing for: to deprive you of your property. Only if you don't own the software or the hardware you are using in your home can DRM work. Of course with software it's easier: you don't buy a copy of the software, you are just license it.
As far as I understood the EME the W3C will not define any particular implementation, but will provide an interface to Content Decryption Modules. Vendors can then set a key and the CDM will decrypt the content.
So basically it's the same as with codecs. The W3C failed to define a set of open codecs and they are not defining any particular DRM.
I guess that means that the system or the browser will provide such CDM with the help of TPM and the W3C just provides a standard set of API to set keys and decrypt content.
It's just like Flash or Silverlight, with the minor difference that the DRM will run in your system.
See https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0176.html
The question that lies open before us is: given that DRM exists, should it be implemented through proprietary plugins or should it be possible to hook it somehow into the open web platform?
How it can be possible to have an open platform and to "hook" DRM in it? DRM and an open platform are a contradiction. Good, you can give me the keys and the encryption scheme of your DRM and ask me to "follow the rules" to not copy the data. Anything other then to ask me polity to not copy your movie with the keys and the encryption scheme you just gave me, will be a closed platform.
It's a difficult question in part because even if you have the clear
goal that DRM should be eradicated — which you'll find is a view
actually shared by many people who support EME (in this form or another)
— there is no way to prove which path will most likely succeed in
attaining that goal.
I do know what will not archive that goal: to accolade DRM to a W3C standard. How can you say that people are opposing DRM and are actively working on a DRM W3C standard?
It certainly seems to be the case that platforms that probably
should have died a while back (e.g. Flash, Silverlight) survive to this
day because they support DRM.
Yes and now you are working to bring this to the open web. Which is not possible in an open web anyway, because you can't give me the keys and the encryption scheme and expect any security. So you can just drop the DRM in the first place and give me the content unencrypted.
We can all make guesses, we can have intuitions, but if we're being
honest there's no telling which strategy is most likely to succeed in
either eliminating DRM or turning it into something that's user friendly.
So that is the true agenda. To hook DRM in the open web as much as the user is not aware of it? That means turn the control over to the content producers. So basically, he is admitting defeat to Flash and Silverlight and wants to incorporate proprietary components in the open web. But by that in the future if you want to see "premium content" (from W3C) you have to accept those proprietary components in your open browser.
So what was the goal again for the W3C? To replace Flash and Silverlight with W3C proprietary components? I guess that's where the money is made.
It's not encryption they are talking about, it's DRM. And they understand perfectly well DRM, that "open-source CDM (DRM) would have any hope of staying secure for any length of time at all". Yes, if you can't obfuscate the keys you can't hope to have any DRM.
PS: Also you are paying for DRM either you are using it or not. HDMI, DVDs, DVD players, TVs, mp3 players, etc. all implement DRM and you are paying for it.
Do you really think once DRM is in place in every browser and is a W3C standard, it will only be used for movies?
I could think that Google, Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox, Amazon Cloud, etc. are perfectly able to leverage DRM once it is in every browser.
Facebook is already claiming all pictures of you as theirs:
Facebook to sell your photos: Social media giant claims it owns the rights to ALL your Instagram pictures
The only obstacle right now is that to enforce DRM you need to use Flash or Silverlight. But once you open up the floodgate...
That will all be changed by brain implants. Now we can ensure the trusted path: Internet, local Computer, HDMI connection, Monitor, Eyeballs. The monitor will output an encoded picture that the eyes will register and the brain implant will decode it to your occipital lobe Later it will erase any memory of the video if the producer set the broadcast flag.
PS: Of course Richard Stallman was again all correct about cloud services: Cloud computing is a trap, warns GNU founder Richard Stallman
Now the DRM from the cloud services will be standardize. That will give legislators only more excuses to push such laws as the DMCA, SIPA or SOPA. "The proposed law will only make compliance with the W3C Media Source Extensions more easier. You do want your Youtube videos, no?"
No it is possible: with legislation. That is why the BBC is calling for legal sanctions.
This will result in invading your privacy at home just like any DRM:
However, the BBC is unlikely to be able to use any such mechanism unless we feel that it is sufficiently secure that there would be the possibility of legal action in the event of bypassing it.
Television is generally a more expensive medium than music to produce due to the amount of labour involved, and therefore for consumers to purchase. Business models that enable content to be available to them on a temporary (or rental) basis are usually able to do so at significantly lower cost than would be the case for permanent copies.
That is definite not true on the Internet. "Television" on the Internet is cheaper then permanent copies. Once the infrastructure is in place, you just pay for the bandwidth.
An example of this effect in action can be seen with the BBC’s iPlayer – by limiting the window of availability, the BBC is able to make content available for no additional fee to UK licence fee payers.
Yes because the current copyright model is broken. If the copyright terms were not astronomical high, the producers wouldn't be so greedy and would not impose artificial limitations by hiking up prices for unlimited availability. That is the only reason public entities like the BBC needs to artificial limit availability. There are no real cost in making a video available once or unlimited on the iPlayer.
We require the ability to securely identify a type of device, and enable or disable video playback based upon the answer.
Goodbye free operating system and free browsers. I can see a future where Mozilla needs to negotiate a license with the BBC (or any other producer) to be able to play their videos.
The ability to pass further restrictions to the graphics rendering path if available.
Goodbye your privacy, goodbye open source. Now every component needs to be verified that it is "trusted".
Instead, the high-quality video content that the broadcast industry produces will be made available only to closed devices and application stores where such security can be implemented.
It's just the same anyway. Either you close up the Web with DRM or you use closed solutions like Flash or Silverlight. What is the advantage for the Web again? There is no way under those conditions from the BBC that an open source browser like Firefox or open source system like Linux can operate.
For games, you can give away source code and sell the packaged product.
How I wish that would be the norm. For example with Sid Meyers Alpha Centauri. Such a great game. If only they would open up the source you could still play it for the next 50 years. It doesn't have to be the GPL, it could be a Non-Commercial license.
But the problem is a) they all too afraid that somebody will take the code and create a new game out of it. and b) they want you to buy the next new game instead of playing the good old ones.
Yeah right. The average user is going to download the source and compile it. Good one :p
That article lacks a lot of important information and also the very first sentence don't make any sense at all.
Commercial software going Open Source doesn't happen very often.
Commercial Software and Open Source Software are not orthogonal concepts. There are many Open Source Software that are commercial. For example RedHat Linux, MySQL.
The first question is what is "success"?
You can take any software and re-license it under the GPL or BSD (if you have the copyrights). But what is your goal? What are you defining as "success"?
Do you want more users, more money, more developers?
I guess the author wants more money. So if you are taking your product and offer it now for free, how are you suppose to make more money? The GPL do not forbid you from taking money for your product!
Going open source will bring you more developers, but only for some kind of projects. For example, a game engine will not bring you many new developers, just because game engines are normally very complex. A finished game is the same, games are complex and not many want to develop your game.
You can have more users with an Open Source license just by offering it as package for the Linux distributions. Maybe your software will get into the main repository and will be shipped with every copy of Ubuntu, Debian or some else.
You see, it's a very complex. You can't just go Open Source and except to get a shitload of money. Open Source is in the first to share information, not making money. Of course by sharing information you can get money.
The results were...disastrous. Within a very short period of time of going Open Source, the total funding for the projects fell to less than 20% of what was being brought in via sales when the software was Closed Source, which almost completely impeded the ability to fund continued development.
What a surprise. He offered his product for free and wondered why nobody is paying for it. If my baker tomorrow will offer their bread for free, why should I pay for it? Why didn't he made his stuff Open Source and sold it? Or sold a premium version that is Open Source for a higher price?
The Humble Indie Game Package was a success because there is a big market for DRM free and portable games. All gamers are just took in the ass from big publishers with rootkits, always-on, Windows-only, DRM-crap games. And then came Humble Indie Game Package. My only source of games is right now the Humbe Indie Packages and http://www.gog.com/
Makes perfectly sense. Software do not expire. The hardware can break, but software do not expire. So why would they replace a perfectly good working solution, just to gain what? Not needed mouse support?
The vendor is at fault for not remembering the most important feature of a software: consistency. If he would have, why not re-create the DOS interface, with the same keyboard shortcuts, but added mouse support and a little polish? I think most of the customers would appreciate the increased resolution, from 80x25 to 1920px (bigger font, better for the eyes, or more information).
Oh please, that is the standard behaviour of anything on Windows. Everything installs a bar or updater or notification thingy.
JavaScript, good joke.
The Google Docs is a very good example for what not do to in the browser. Sure it can open Odf files, but for what? The time when you need to pay 300$ or more for a good Document Writer are long over. LibreOffice or OpenOffice are at least 50 times more capable then Google Docs and are not depending on a good internet connection.
The problem with the midleware of Java is only because of the Browser (and Sun) developer. They chosen long ego to not support Java as good as Flash in the Web browser. My browser is becoming more bloated and bloated (I don't know why but since Firefox 18 the menus are now very sluggish and I conceder to switch to Chrome). Instead to re-implement everything again in the browser (and make the browser more bloated, more insecure and more of a monolithic monster).
In my futuristic world, Orcale and the browsers could come together and make Java a seaming-less experience. In my futuristic world you could have had 3D, canvas, storage, database, etc. as good as a desktop application already, if you could bind Oracle Java and browsers together. In Java all the stuff that Mozilla and Google trying to implement in their browsers is already there in a cross-platform and open source way (OpenJDK).
Why not put your Mindcraft demo as a Java applet and make it seaming-less as here:
http://jchart2d.sourceforge.net/applet.shtml
http://www.blakearchive.org/exist/blake/archive/object.xq?objectid=aro.a.illbk.01&java=no
But that will never happen. Because Mozilla and Google want their own operating system, bypassing Apple and Microsoft. The W3C want to stick to HTML, DOM and JavaScript for everything.