- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:31:53 +0200
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > I have not heard about any objections from the Free Software Community about > any of the Open Web Platform (OWP) specs other than EME. > > Accordingly, a subset of the OWP which removes EME would more accurately be > characterized as a "profile" of the OWP, rather than a fork of the OWP. The above implies that you consider EME to to be part of the Open Web Platform. On what basis? On the basis that EME alone (without a CDM) is non-proprietary even though all its current and expected deployments involve a proprietary CDM and, therefore, the actual uses of EME fall outside the Open Web? Quoting myself from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0052.html 'I think it's wrong to commandeer the term "Open Web" to mean "uses some W3C stuff" when it originally meant "doesn't include the proprietary stuff". That is, the involvement of Microsoft-proprietary, Google-proprietary or Foobar-proprietary CDM should disqualify something from being part of the Open Web. The use of the to-be-W3C-blessed API to communicate with the proprietary component should not be enough to qualify something as being part of the Open Web--neither should "uses a smaller proprietary box than before".' Quoting Mark from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Oct/0232.html "It's clear that DRM itself - whether in <object> plugins or CDMs - is outside the 'Open Web'." -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 08:32:24 UTC