Re: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

On 1/16/2014 5:16 PM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:49:06 -0500
> > From: jeff@w3.org
> > To: hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
> > CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management
> >
> >
> > On 1/16/2014 3:31 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > To rephrase in a way that I hope you would agree:
> >
> > I have not heard about any objections from the Free Software Community
> > about any of the W3C specs other than EME.
>
> I dispute Tim's interpretations of the principles of the web, and 
> dispute that DRM is compatible with the open web, and this is a core 
> issue.

Yes, this is exactly why there are objections specifically to EME.

>
> > Accordingly, a subset of W3C specs which removes EME would more
> > accurately be characterized as a "profile" of the W3C specs, rather 
> than
> > a fork of the W3C specs.
>
> DRM is a restriction, a mis-feature, a negative.   If a profile is the 
> subtraction of features, then subtracting the EME mis-features is an 
> addition!

A profile is a subtraction of a specification.

>    In other words subtracting the EME restrictions would permit EME 
> implementations that do not have these restrictions - an EME 
> implementation without restrictions might be a 'profile'.   Your 
> position also ignores the legal context - people might still be 
> persecuted for using the 'profile' with the EME restrictions removed!
>
> cheers
> Fred
>
>
>
>