[Bug 20967] EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source implementations.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967

--- Comment #9 from Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> comment #5 states:
> "CDMs by design are out of scope for this document."
> 
> At the same time there have been no objection to the statement in comment #3
> "Open Source and DRM are incompatible. This will not change for the CR
> phase."
> 
> The conclusion is that this issue can not be resolved without changing the
> design of EME.
> 
> I am not aware of a solution which would both resolve this issue and fulfill
> the requirements of those supporting EME. Others also do not seem to be
> aware of such a solution.
> 
> It therefore seems to be impossible to resolve this issue as fixed.
> 
> The only honest way to "resolve" this without dropping EME therefore seems
> to be as "WONTFIX".

It might help to add that the term 'independent implementation'
needs clarification.  The meaning intended in this bug report is
that anyone would be free to implement an EME/CDM
solution and expect it to be interoperable.  In contrast to an
independent but encumbered implementation where is is
necessary to agree to restrictive licensing terms.

Note that some people claim that DRM could well be 'open
source' if it is restricted by the platform to only run a
particular approved version and if some critical
components, such as keys, are not included.  Such a
solution might increase the transparency of the operation
of the CDM and help address some concerns.  However, the
system as a whole is still not open and free for anyone
to independently implement and would not be compatible
for FOSS operating systems which do not offer the
required restricted platform.

Note that the EME itself is just an API definition
and a set of stubs may qualify as an implementation.
Thus it is necessary to qualify that it is the EME,
CDM, and platform combined that implement the DRM
restrictions that is claimed not to support
independent implementation.  The ethics of allowing
a standard to be split into an API and encumbered
CDMs to avoid scrutiny is a matter for the community
to consider.

Note that the EME claims non-DRM use cases as within
scope and these could well be unencumbered and could
be independently implemented in FOSS.  The ethics
of allowing a standard to claim less controversial
use cases, that could well be split out, and to
use these to deflect analysis of the compatibility
of the standard with the open web platform is a
matter for the community to consider.

If the non-DRM use cases are split out from the
EME specification then for all use cases it is
an API to support encumbered technology that is
not compatible with the W3C processes.  The ethics
of claiming that support for such an API is not
support for uses of the API is a matter for the
community to consider.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 11:10:56 UTC