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

David,

The existence of an open source licensed implementation of the specification
is not the test to be applied here.  The test is: can a competent person write
an implementation of the standard and license it on their own terms?

For example, the EME plus DRM CDMs would fail many much narrower
related tests, and the Chairs can reject it now on this basis.

* Can a competent persons write their own software to implement the
standard?  Fail.

* Can someone contract out the writing of software to implement the
standard to any competent software developer?  Fail.

* Can someone purchase a license to use software implementing the
standard from any competent software developer?  Fail.

The last test is very important because without a free market for
implementations of the standard the user looses all control.

You might argue that the EME alone is just an interface to a controlled
plugin, and that the interface alone can meet all the above, but the
intention of EME is to support DRM that does not meet the above tests
and it is clear that there is no path to meeting these tests.

cheers
Fred

From: singer@apple.com
Subject: Fwd: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First   Public Working Draft (FPWD)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 15:58:37 -0800
To: fredandw@live.com

oops, I might have cut down the mailing lists etc. a bit too much.  sorry if you didn't get this

Begin forwarded message:Resent-From: public-html-media@w3.org
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First   Public Working Draft (FPWD)
Date: February 8, 2013 15:39:06  PST
To: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E12F04EF-503A-400F-845E-B4BCB34180AA@apple.com>


On Feb 8, 2013, at 15:26 , Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:
The objections based on EME being incompatible with open source
systems are clear enough that you can make a call now to reject it.


Open-source software is a valuable part of the industry, but it's not part of the W3C's mandate or modus operandi.  Indeed, there are many standards bodies that require reference implementations (reference software source code) for all standards.  The W3C doesn't even require that, and doesn't offer a reference implementation of any of its recommendations, as far as I know.
The use of the word 'open' in 'open web' and 'open source' does not make the latter two phrases synonymous, and in fact, it's not clear that the same meaning of 'open' is used either (viz. discussions about beer, speech, and the word 'free').

David SingerMultimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.




David SingerMultimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.