- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:02:39 +0300
- To: public-restrictedmedia <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 12:34 -0700, Mark Watson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Nikos Roussos > <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 08:55 -0700, Mark Watson wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Nikos Roussos > > <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 13:50 -0700, John Foliot > wrote: > > > Nikos Roussos wrote: > > > > > > > > Excluding Free Software users is also a > technical flaw. > > > > > > No, it is a decision taken by some users to not > use software > > that does not meet their expectations, for whatever > reasons > > they deem the software unsuitable. The software > *does* work, > > just not in the way you want it to work. That's a > > philosophical stance, not a technical limitation or > flaw. > > Software solutions that do not meet philosophical > requirements > > are not by extension technically flawed, only (at > best) > > philosophically so. > > > > > > No, it is a technological flow because excluding > Free Software > > users you > > lose interoperability, another W3C's principle that > > contradicts with > > EME. > > > > > > Only we don't _have_ interoperability for this content with > Free > > Software platforms today. We can't lose something we don't > have. > > > Today though the current "solutions" are not W3C standards. > > > Right, and neither the current solutions nor W3C standards support > delivery of this content to Free Software platforms, so, as I said, we > do not lose anything here, we just don't gain anything on this aspect > either. My point is that interoperability is very important not to take it in consideration when designing a W3C standard. But we agree that the EME proposal is as worse as the current (Flash/Silverlight) situation, at least on the interoperabilty front :) > > The most you can say is that this proposal doesn't solve the > problem > > of making this content available to Free Software platforms. > But this > > is not something the W3C _can_ solve and it's definitely not > a > > technical problem (all solutions I can see involve either > content > > providers changing their license terms or Free Software > users changing > > their principled stance against proprietary code, neither of > which are > > technical solutions. A problem which has no conceivable > technical > > solution cannot be described as a technical problem). > > > It's both technological and philosophical issue. W3C's > principles, thus > its mission, are mostly philosophical and the technical > standards should > align with these. > > So we are not here to discuss just the technical design of the > EME > proposal, but its philosophical contradiction to Open Web > principles > > > I was responding to your assertion that this was a technical issue. It > seems you agree it is philosophical now. No. I'm saying is both. > > > > > > > > > > You will have succeeded in neutering the W3C. > > > > > > > > We agree that this would have an impact on W3C's > future, > > but we read > > > > this very differently > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- > > > > restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0293.html > > > > > > In that posting, you wrote: > > > > > > "It's safe to say that there is a consensus > among > > those who object to > > > EME, that we believe it contradicts with Open Web > principles > > and > > > therefore W3C's mission. If EME gets approved the > most > > important thing > > > we'll lose is W3C." > > > > > > > > I won't lose the W3C, neither will anyone else: > the W3C will > > continue to exist, (...). > > > > Of course it will continue to exist. But it would be > > irrelevant in the > > Open Web world. > > > > > > > > The purpose of the W3C is to make the web better. Are you > saying that > > if the W3C chooses to make one part of the web better (the > part > > involving protected content) then its ability to make other > parts of > > the web better suddenly vanishes ? How so ? > > > I understand your point, but it's based on the assumption that > it does > make a part of the web better. I don't share the same point of > view. > > > So, this is something we can discuss. I explained in another mail some > reasons why I think EME can make things better. Could you respond to > those points ? > > > And I'll rephrase my question: Are you saying that if W3C chooses to > work on the part of the web involving protected content (and either > succeeds or not in making that part better), that its ability to make > other parts of the web better suddenly vanishes ? How so ? Because it will loose its current status and it will be less respectful among the Open Web community. > Furthermore, I'm still interested, hypothetically, to know whether if > you were convinced that EME did indeed make part of the web better in > some way, would you still be opposed to W3C working on it ? Why ? That's a big "if" :) Usage control solutions are making the web worst by design. That's why people that object to EME don't propose different DRM implementations. You have to go one step back, where you change your business model in something that respects consumer and user rights.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 09:03:06 UTC