The DRM proponents often counter that EME is independently "implementable". However EME in itself isn't doing anything. When confronted with the fact that CDMs as might be required by particular content distributors or required by particular UAs aren't independently implementable, they counter that GIF, PNG, JPEG, H.264 are also not independently implementable. This is a distortion of the fact that A) independent implementations of GIF, PNG, JPEG and H.264 exist and B) that CDMs are purposefully designed/licensed not to be independently implementable. That is a big difference that you can't just gloss over. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr.: > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > >> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >>> That's a lot of words for just trying to state a variant of "you're > >>> intolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance". > >> > >> Actually Tab, not exactly. > >> > >> I am suggesting that if the web is to truly remain Open, *anyone* > >> can contribute a standard to the larger stack, and that no one group > >> or philosophy should set themselves up as gatekeepers, which is the > >> net effect of what the EFF and others appear to be attempting to do. > > > > That's exactly what I said. Trying to assert that it's "not truly > > Open" to block things that reduce open-ness is double-talk. > > It would be double-talk if it leads to a contradiction. But that depends > on the definitions of "Open" and "open-ness". > > One problem seems to be that there is no agreement regarding the > definition of "Open Web Platform" within the W3C. So far that might not > have been a big problem, but it is one in the context of DRM and EME. > > Some potentially relevant material is available here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > > But the W3C belongs to the official supporters of Open Stand. One of the > principles is: > > "Balance. Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by any > particular person, company or interest group." > > Another Open Stand principle is: > > "Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants > to collective empowerment by striving for standards that ... provide > global interoperability ..." > http://open-stand.org/principles/ > > EME is not only dominated by an interest group (DRM proponents) but it > is by design ignoring another interest group (the Open Source community) > because DRM is globally not interoperable with an Open Source environment. > > *** > > Please send replies to public-restrictedmedia@w3.org. Thanks. > > Cheers, > Andreas > >
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 10:01:38 UTC