- From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:51:49 -0400
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 04/12/2013 12:34 PM, Mark Watson wrote: > Dominique, > > There is an open source implementation of OMA DRM: > http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/ Is it alive? Last Update: 2010-10-14; Source Distribution modified 2006-06-23 > However, we should be clear that this and any other open source DRM is > likely still going to require license fees (to people not present in the > W3C) and will be subject to robustness rules that require techniques to be > used that make user-modification difficult (making it incompatible with > GPLv3, but nevertheless still open source). That wouldn't be compatible with W3C's Patent Policy either. (I'm not saying it would be required to, if it were only one possible implementation referenced from, rather than included in the spec, but I do see that as a goal.) Namely, PP Sec. 5, Para. 7: A Royalty-Free license "may not impose any further conditions or restrictions on the use of any technology, intellectual property rights, or other restrictions on behavior of the licensee, but may include reasonable, customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as the following: choice of law and dispute resolution;" http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements If extra "no-modify" conditions are part of the most liberal license under which DRM is made available to fulfill the CDM component of EME, is it substantively compatible with goals that any user can become a developer without extra obligations? > Your question is a good one, though: are there alternatives to DRM that > would meet the goals of content providers and also address some of the > concerns that have been raised with DRM ? Can we hear some of the content providers' goals expressed in a bit more detail, as requirements rather than a set of solutions? --Wendy > > I'm not in a position to say whether such alternatives are likely to > emerge, but the Encrypted Media Extensions at least create a space in which > such solutions could emerge. Browsers implementors could innovate in this > space and the Encrypted Media Extensions provide an API by which those > capabilities could be exposed to applications in a uniform (and so > easy-to-adopt) way. By contrast, the current situation with Flash and > Silverlight plugins or custom apps provides no such opportunity. > > ...Mark > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote: > >> Le vendredi 12 avril 2013 à 11:54 -0400, Jeff Jaffe a écrit : >>>> I guess my point is that a positive assessment of that practicality >>>> should be a prerequisite in investing a Working Group time on that >>>> technology. >>> >>> You seem to be saying that the WG should not evaluate the solution >>> unless it has gotten traction in the marketplace. >> >> Not quite, I said it should be a prerequisite in investing a WG time; to >> be more explicit, I believe a FPWD is a sign that a WG is taking on a >> commitment to progress a document to Recommendation. I believe a >> prerequisite to that commitment should be an assessment of its >> practicality. >> >>> I believe that a major driver of getting traction in the marketplace is >>> the realization that it has unique value as a standard that sits in the >>> middle of a polarized discussion (hard-core DRM on the one-side and no >>> DRM on the other side). >> >> Agreed. >> >>> I would agree with you that there should be a prerequisite, but I would >>> argue for a weaker prerequisite. A weaker prerequisite is that there >>> should be a WG participant willing to passionately argue for that >>> approach. (I note that today soft-DRM does not even satisfy the weaker >>> prerequisite.) >> >> I agree that the no-DRM-camp has a duty to propose alternative >> approaches; this thread is my feeble attempt at building such an >> alternative. >> >> Dom >> >>>> >>>> Dom >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://wendy.seltzer.org/ +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 18:51:57 UTC