- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:12:30 -0700
- To: john@netpurgatory.com
- Cc: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+e9DJ2o95erzPKL38fch58s+t3WYQOTfeLNqR++79+G0A@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > > 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. >> >> > In principle, I'm in favor of keeping mechanism and policy seperate, but > I'm afraid (and I suspect I'm not alone in this), that if we do that, we > end up with a situation where open source implimentations are forever kept > out of the game. Saying we can make open source implementations, we just > can't use them in any meaningful way is not an answer some of us can be > okay with (and shows that it is dangerous for us to accept talking about > mechanism without any reference to policy). Just because one license for one content item employs a restrictive policy does not mean that all licenses do the same. You over-generalize when you imply that one such restrictive license effectively prohibits a meaningful use of a mechanism with a non-restrictive policy. The danger here is not restrictive policies. The danger is making premature conclusions about the utility of a mechanism without a good understanding of its potential range of uses.
Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 18:13:18 UTC