Re: What is the "open web" ?

Le mer. 05/06/13, 16:29, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:
> 
> >>>> Since the EME spec doesn't specify the CDMs, someone could certainly
> >>>> create an open CDM (for whatever definition of open they prefer) and
> >>>> EME would work with that.
> >>>
> >>> This is a dubious statement.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > I referred to the bit: “for whatever definition of open they
> > prefer” (I thought it was obvious from the following sentence).
> > Don't know if "dubious" is really the word I was looking for
> > though, excuse my French. But I just wanted to emphasise there's
> > no debate about what's “open source” or not in the context of
> > software.  This is very much established.
> 
> The point of my qualification was that my main point is independent of
> what you think open source means. You can certainly implement EME and
> a CDM under whatever open source terms you choose.

There is something strange there. It is not about what *I* think
open source means. The definition of what is Open Source and Free
Software is very well established. 

We even have legal tools (licenses) to clearly draw the line
between what's open source/free software, and what is not.

>  You can certainly implement EME and
> a CDM under whatever open source terms you choose.

Can you really? You need to define what a CDM is then. Because if
a CDM can be free software, that means the recipient of the CDM
can modify the CDM and thus bypass the limitations set forth by
the CDM.

If the recipient of the CDM cannot get the source code and modify
it, that means your CDM *is not* by any definition, Free Software
or open source, regardless of which licenses we are talking about.

> 
> >
> >> There's a trivial existence proof in the clear key CDM. I see no
> >> reason why there could not be others.
> >>
> >> As I said, whether and to whom such CDMs would be useful is a
> >> different question.
> >
> > I think the two questions are not that separate. What does EME
> > solve, what is it designed for? What would clear key systems
> > really gain from this?
> >
> > If clear key CDM in the context of EME are absolutely useless, it
> > is a strong hint that EME is actually designed for closed-source
> > CDM
> 
> It's frequently claimed that DRM goes too far in controlling usage to
> align with content license terms. So, presumably, some people would
> like to see other solutions that do not go so far. I don't know what
> those might be, but EME provides a place to experiential with such
> things, over time. Maybe that won't work. Maybe there is a
> mathematical proof that anything short of DRM as it is today is
> equivalent to clear key for some kind of equivalence accepted by
> content producers.
> 
> The point is that whether a useful CDM can be built in open source is
> clearly not a technical issue. It depends on the ingenuity of people
> creating CDMs and the requirements of content producers.

You need to demonstrate how CDM can be “built in open source”
because the very usefulness of DRM lies in its secrecy,
obfuscation and restriction of users', all of which are 100% at
odds with Free Software.


-- 
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 23:27:29 UTC