Re: Registration of CDMs as a solution proposal (was Re: "Revealed: how Microsoft...")

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:

> Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Robert O'Callaghan of Mozilla proposed that all CDMs be
> > > > > registered and that a condition of registration be publication
> > > > > of the source code
> > > >
> > > > Interesting solution... Independently of the fact I'm against EME,
> > > > since this would mean a reduced and clearly common set of CDMs, I
> > > > agree with that solution.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > since it would also greatly increase the likelihood of being able to
> > > run the CDMs on Free Software operating system platforms, therefore
> > > significantly reducing the risk in regard to the continued viability
> > > of such operating system platforms that I'm so concerned about.
> > >
> >
> > I see, so this is an area where there could be some advantage to
> > working on this in W3C then ?
> >
> > I'm not saying the above solution will be agreed - that's really not
> > something I can influence - but I don't see any context other than
> > W3C in which this and alternatives could be discussed.
> >
> > ...Mark
>
> Ouch. So you're not even willing to try using your influence -
> surely you must have some - for moving things towards a solution, but
> you're really only interested in scoring points for the “this should
> be worked on in W3C” position!?
>
> Maybe I misread your posting?
>

Yes, you did. I just meant it's not in my power to promise to publish
source code owned by other companies. Like I said, we would like to see a
solution that works for Firefox and I will do what I can to help that come
about. Those companies publishing source code is rather unlikely, in my
opinion, but it's up to them. The suggestion serves as an example of an
outcome that might be acceptable to many people who are skeptical about DRM.


>
> Otherwise the logical conclusion for me is that there is no point in
> continuing the conversation with you.
>
> Since I also can't take my concerns to the relevant WG mailing list
> (they're considered off-topic there), and no other representatives of
> the companies which are pushing for EME seem to be engaging on this
> list at all, the overall result might easily be a total dead end, in
> the sense of total lack of opportunity for being involved in
> discussions that have any chance of leading to a solution.
>

Again, like I said, there is an open bug on this and constructive
suggestions on how to realistically address it would be more than welcome.


>
> :-(
>
> So much for the supposed “advantage to working on this in W3C”.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> FreedomHTML.org
>