[Bug 27055] Surfacing license to the user

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

--- Comment #14 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> ---
(In reply to Sergey Konstantinov from comment #12)
> > 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".

I mean "license" in the technical sense as used in the DRM context: a data
object that contains content keys and information about the technical
restrictions to be applied.

> 
> > 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.

That's an entirely different issue and anyway, what I suggested is that having
a *readable* natural language presentation of the restrictions would be more
useful than a machine-readable one and furthermore does not constrain the
restrictions to be only those embodied in the rights expression language.

> 
> 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 15:44:01 UTC