W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:40:26 -0500
Message-ID: <510DDC2A.9010102@intertwingly.net>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 02/02/2013 08:39 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>     That is clear.  It is also clear that there is widespread
>     objections. The chairs are actively working with W3C Management to
>     determine how best to proceed.
> Does an individual objection have the same weight as a member objection?
> I have not seen any publicly attributable objections by a member
> organization posted, though it is possible I have missed them (or they
> haven't been made public).
> On the other hand, I have seem quite a number of formal member approvals.
> If there is a need for further input, perhaps a formal survey,
> answerable by member organizations would be appropriate.

As I indicated, we are actively seeking guidance.

> BTW, I'm also a long-time Ubuntu user, so I am also very interested in
> seeing a solution emerge there. So far, I have seen no technical barrier
> to an Ubuntu based browser, such as FF, implementing a user-installable
> CDM extension mechanism that does not require Ubuntu to make a support
> or licensing decision. Of course, it would be more ideal for CDMs to be
> available to Ubuntu users under standard open source terms, but the
> absence of which would not prevent a user from installing a 3rd party
> supplied CDM (provided the UA supported a CDM add-on mechanism).

It is not a matter of "standard operating system terms".  I personally 
am a customer of two different home media systems which purport to 
support their content "anywhere", but when I try I get messages about my 
operating system not being supported.

> In my dealings with content owners, e.g., the big six studios, I have
> generally seen a willingness to entertain the use of any CP system
> provided they are sufficiently convinced it adequately protects access
> to their content, whatever their definition of adequate is, and I have
> observed that their definition of adequate has tended to change over time.

The point being made on public-html is that the current private 
assurances seem to be at variance with the long time observable public 

Note: I am by no means saying that such objections are blocking.  What I 
am saying is that such objections have been expressed, and we need to 
provide a substantive response to these objections.

> G.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 03:41:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:17 UTC