Re: Open Source implementations Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, John C. Vernaleo <>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

Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 17:32:12 UTC