Re: W3C FAQ on DRM and HTML5 ?!

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> > So, we are definitively interested in the space,
> > independently of whether the HTML Working Group is interested in
> > developing a solution or whether it is done in a separate group.
> > Whatever we choose, we will do our best to get the right balance between
> > producers and consumers.
>
> Does the W3C intend solutions acceptable to the W3C in this space to
> be Royalty-Free per the W3C Patent Policy
> 1) for the parts that are specced at the W3C
> 2) for the entirety of the solution that user agents would need to
> implement in order to interoperate even if parts of the solution rely
> on things not specified at the W3C?
>

IMO, part 2 above is an absurd question, since the W3C does not build user
agents and does not control what goes into a user agent. If you want to be
serious about this question, then first you must precisely define what is
in scope in the phrase "to interoperate". In the discussion at hand, I
would expect the CDM interface and a Clearkey CDM to be in scope (since
they are proposed to be specified by the W3C) and other CDMs to be out of
scope (since they would not be specified by the W3C). However, I guess that
you consider CDMs not defined by the W3C to be in scope, at least as far as
the W3C is concerned. That's sort of like asking whether specific uses of
XML are in scope for RF implementation since W3C defines XML as RF
technology. We know there are many uses of XML for which patents have been
granted (I'm not judging the appropriateness of this, it just happens), but
do we wish to constrain users of XML to only use it in RF contexts? You
seem to be arguing that W3C adopt a GPL like regime which would refuse to
permit use of W3C technologies in non-RF contexts. If that is what you are
arguing, I expect that you represent a small minority of participants in
W3C.