The GPL isn't about providing incentive to contribute back patches (or forcing it as some characterize it). It's about ensuring software freedom for software *users*. That any software you use, you should be allowed to study it, modify it, and re-distribute it without restriction. Economic benefits from open source are not what the GPL is for, so don't claim that the GPL is unnecessary because companies will still contribute back. That's a mis-representation of what Free Software is all about. If you want to complain about "zealots" at least understand their position.
There's a fundamental difference between breaking the algorithm mathematically and the key space being too small. People left DES and 3-DES because the key size was too small and a brute force became feasible. The same is becoming true for RSA, but this is completely different than solving the discrete logarithm problem that underpins RSA and Diffie-Hellman. Solving that would be an amazing feat of mathematics. So please stop trying to show off to
/. how you're smarter than everyone else.
As a user I would prefer to play my videos that I purchase on all devices not just ones that have the approved proprietary DRM.
The DRM in HTML5 will be non-open technology anyways, so what's the difference? Either I use non-open DRM with a standard interface, or I use non-open DRM without a standard interface. As a user they are both shit options, so stop encouraging them. Stallman is a popular target to make fun of, but he's right in this instance.