W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:30:14 +0000
Message-ID: <510E3C36.7040509@mit.edu>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 2/3/13 2:33 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
> MW> I'm not that familiar with Flash specifically, but Flash-on-Linux may be different - in ways content providers care about - from Flash-on-Windows/Mac.

It's possible, of course, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.  If 
there is, I'd be very interested, since it seems very germane to this 
discussion.

> MW> What I am talking about above is the "anti-tivoization" clause in some FOSS licenses which explicitly forbids non-user-modifiable components.

Yes, I know what you're talking about.  I'm not concerned with that at 
the moment, since for example Ubuntu, the concrete example in this 
thread, does in fact ship binary blobs as needed.... if they're available.

> MW> The problem of DRM-unavailability-on-Linux can't be solved by W3C.

Perhaps.

So far what I'm hearing is that certain parties want to standardize some 
things related to DRM and want the W3C to bless their efforts.

Is it unreasonable to make at least some sort of effort toward support 
for the result on all platforms, instead of just platitudes about how it 
can't be done, a condition of the blessing?  Maybe, maybe not.

-Boris
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:30:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:30:46 GMT