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

Good suggestion, I'll use 'encumbered' or 'unencumbered' when mentioning 'independent
implementation' to avoid confusion.

cheers
Fred

From: glenn@skynav.com
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 17:35:22 -0700
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: 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?