[Bug 27055] Surfacing license to the user

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27055

--- Comment #12 from Sergey Konstantinov <twirl-team@yandex.ru> ---
> I think a design which explicitly required license restrictions to be matched
> to product restrictions for the purpose of user interaction would be a very
> bad design.

First of all, "license" is a legal term. If we say that "license" in EME spec
doesn't match actual licensing agreement (at least in its technical part) and
it's impossible or undesirable to setup such coupling -- then we should stop
calling it "license".

In second, this coupling in some form must be implemented by content vendors
since they must somehow adjust DRM system settings to reflect EULA terms. So
right now every content vendor has its own algorithm or policy to translate
product license to technical license(s).

As I noted before, this coupling is frequently done badly thus being a constant
source of problems and misunderstanding between vendors and consumers. Now we
are bringing this problem into the Web, adding (a) potentially infinite number
of applications using EME and doing common mistakes, (b) UA as additional
potential failure point, (c) interoperability requirement which multiplies
number of keysystems supported by each site. In my opinion we have no other
choice but standardize technical license formats and their relations to product
license.

> But then I don't see the advantage of having a machine-readable version of 
> the rights, rather than natural language text presented to the user.

First of all, I've never seen product license written in "natural language".
Quite opposite, EULAs are extremely hard to read even if you are experienced
user.

In second, one of the main problems we are trying to solve here is possible
fraud when webapp lies about actual technical restrictions.

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

Received on Friday, 24 October 2014 08:47:28 UTC