Re: [Bug 20944] New: EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> I think it is obvious what I mean.  That I can take the specification
> ALONE,
> sit down at my computer, and write software that implements this
> specification, and expect it to work.
>

And you can certainly do that for EME. Whether you can independently
implement a CDM that supports a specific key/encryption system is another
matter. You may be required to obtain a license to be able to implement and
deploy some systems, and that license may impose restrictions
(encumbrances) on the form in which the CDM is distributed or integrated
into a larger system. This is an orthogonal matter to independent
implementability.


> I expect that this standards setting forum has a similar definition to me,
> but I am open to being shown otherwise, in which case it would be
> you who needs to take care that your language does not mislead.
>

I am simply attempting to explain that the concept of independent
implementability includes both encumbered and unencumbered implementations.
You have chosen to restrict your interpretation to the latter. So, if you
are open to a suggestion, then may I offer the more specific phrase
"unencumbered, independent implementation" as a better expression your
intent?