- From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:06:22 +0200
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
Le mer. 05/06/13, 11:14, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>: > On 6/5/2013 10:57 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote: > I've been trying to establish the following points in this discussion. > > 1. Today there are no W3C policies which would forbid EME from > consideration. > 2. I accept the fact that one could want such policies. They could > be proposed and even accepted in time. But, simply, these would be > new policies. > 3. In terms of freedom to access content without EME - there are > competing principles (cf blog post). I don't denigrate the > principled arguments that content should be "free" in a FOSS sense. > But there are principles on the other side as well, that we are > balancing when we say that we can include EME in the Open Web > Platform, but not a proprietary CDM. The question of content being “"free" in a FOSS sense” or not is completely irrelevant to EME. The question of content being free of charge is also irrelevant to EME. The problem is with EME effectively requiring users to install non-free software, because EME is designed to answer needs of unfree CDM. -- Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/ Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 16:06:54 UTC