- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:30:14 +0000
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 2/3/13 2:33 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > MW> I'm not that familiar with Flash specifically, but Flash-on-Linux may be different - in ways content providers care about - from Flash-on-Windows/Mac. It's possible, of course, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. If there is, I'd be very interested, since it seems very germane to this discussion. > MW> What I am talking about above is the "anti-tivoization" clause in some FOSS licenses which explicitly forbids non-user-modifiable components. Yes, I know what you're talking about. I'm not concerned with that at the moment, since for example Ubuntu, the concrete example in this thread, does in fact ship binary blobs as needed.... if they're available. > MW> The problem of DRM-unavailability-on-Linux can't be solved by W3C. Perhaps. So far what I'm hearing is that certain parties want to standardize some things related to DRM and want the W3C to bless their efforts. Is it unreasonable to make at least some sort of effort toward support for the result on all platforms, instead of just platitudes about how it can't be done, a condition of the blessing? Maybe, maybe not. -Boris
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:30:45 UTC