- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:01:21 -0700
- To: Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 16:43 -0700, Mark Watson wrote: >> >> You are right that a CDM that implements all the capabilities of the >> DRM itself, in software, without making use of platform APIs for that >> purpose, couldn't be Free Software as it is required to be >> non-user-modifiable. > > This statement also assumes that the platform that the CDM is running on > has APIs that support Digital Restrictions Management. Actually, my preceding statement assumed that. I think you highlighted the wrong part. > If that's the > case then then something running in the OS isn't Free Software either > and there is a required compromise for this solution as well. You're > just moving the non-free software to a different part of the system. Sure. I don't think I said, or even implied, anything else (though whether you consider it a compromise, or a fair exchange, is a matter of personal opinion.) ...Mark > > > -- > /* Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. > Visit GNU.org * FSF.org * Trisquel.info */ >
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 06:01:51 UTC