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

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

--- Comment #20 from Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de> ---
(In reply to Paul Cotton from comment #19)
> (In reply to Andreas Kuckartz from comment #17)
> > As a result of the discussion on the mailing list of the W3C Restricted
> > Media Community Group I provide a simple test of formal legal compatibility
> > with Open Source:
> > 
> > Can EME be implemented using the GPLv3 or AGPLv3 license ?
> > 
> > Due to the intended purpose of EME using these licenses also results in
> > certain requirements which have to be satisfied by the CDMs.
> 
> First can you please provide a pointer the exact discussion in the
> Restricted Media CG email discussion where this was discussed?

There was a long thread discussing the semantics of "open web" and "open". I do
not claim that there was or is consensus regarding the semantics or the
suggested test. Here is an entry point:

Re: What is the "open web" ?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0005.html

> Second can you please explain why a W3C specification has to meet this kind
> of test?  I can find nothing in the W3C Process document or the W3C Patent
> Policy or any other W3C policy document that says this is true.

The W3C officially has stated that it supports an "Open Web Platform". Before
EME there were no differences regarding the semantics of "Open" in that
context. This has changed. Some people within the W3C now would like to
(re-)define it in a way which is incompatible with open standards and Open
Source.

A standard which in practice can not be implemented using the GPLv3 is not
open. EME in practice can not even be implemented using the GPLv2.

> Third could you please describe a specific change that could be made to the
> current EME spec that would satisfy your test?

As I stated in #c15:

"Fixing this issue without canceling EME is (almost) as impossible as designing
a working perpetuum mobile. For that reason I can not provide a change
proposal."

Another change would be for the W3C to officially declare that it no longer
advocates the "Open Web Platform" but only a "Web Platform" (whatever that is).

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

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 06:42:57 UTC