On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > > The issue isn't whether it can be implemented in open source software (it >> can), the issue is whether encrypted content can be decoded and presented >> to >> a user on a device that uses such implementation while simultaneously >> satisfying further constraints imposed by licensing terms by content >> providers who insist on using content protection with acceptable >> impediments >> to unauthorized access. >> If such content providers cannot be assured of such protection, then they >> may not make the content available through such means. >> > > Saying that something can be implemented but not be used seems to be a > very odd definition of implementing to me. > It is important to separate technical issues and licensing issues. They are orthogonal. There is a tendency to conflate the two in discussions of this area, and that should be avoided. I can understand how some may be philosophically disposed to a policy of no licensing constraints on content usage (including access, copying, etc.), but that is a very different issue from defining technical mechanisms that may be used to implement policy. Please, let's separate mechanism and policy.Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 17:32:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:20 UTC