- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:35:16 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Confirmation that the development of CDM "key systems" is covered by >> >> the >> >> W3C Patent Policy: should a company decide that they want to create >> >> their >> >> own CDM, and they do so, they should not face face IP litigation from >> >> W3C >> >> members. Each existing CDM vendor, who is also a w3c member, would >> >> check >> >> their patent holdings for relevant IP. A fictional example would be >> >> "Encryption of a network video stream and management of a collection of >> >> keys >> >> for decoding of the data". >> > >> > nothing in the proposal requires a specific CDM to be covered by W3C PP; >> > nor >> > does the W3C PP or PD require this; so you are asking for something that >> > is >> > out of scope; this is no different from someone defining a canvas >> > context >> > that is IPR encumbered and publishing its availability via >> > canvas.getConext("anEncumberedCanvasContext"); >> >> Once again, *please* stop attempting to derail conversations about the >> badness of CDMs by falsely claiming they are "out of scope". > > > We disagree. > >> >> CDMs are novel, essential pieces of technology for the API. There is >> *no reasonable argument* for calling them "out of scope". > > > Wrong. Other than Clearkey, individual CDMs are not part of what is > specified in the proposal. And, *once again*, the fact that the CDMs that will *actually be used* aren't specified in the spec means the spec is incomplete. If this spec moves forward, I will formally object to this lack as well, because it is not possible to implement the spec in practice without the CDMs that will actually be used. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 21:36:07 UTC