Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> > Again, we should not be aiming to restrict the web to only those
> applications based on a purely FOSS stack.
>
> That is, in fact, precisely what I and several other important
> implementors on this list are aiming for.  Anything less than that is
> insulting to our users that choose to use a purely FOSS stack, which
> we recognize as a valid and legitimate choice.


This is the core of the ideological difference between our respective
positions:

Your position appears to be that the W3C should neither define nor enable
anything that permits or encourages non-FOSS usage whatsoever. Both Mark
and I have already pointed out that it already does the latter.

My position is that the W3C should limit what it defines to FOSS usage
scenarios but may (as it chooses) enable the use of non-FOSS technologies.

I recognize that your position is a legitimate ideological point of view,
but it is not one that I share or that is shared by commercial video
provider members.

I also recognize that commercial video provider members (including Cox)
would encourage a timely transition to FOSS-only technologies, both in W3C
specs and deployed W3C usages; however, and, this is the essential point,
many aspects of that transition depend on third parties that are not part
of this process (e.g., MPAA/RIAA) and depend on the successful development
and deployment of technologies that meet existing business requirements.
Therefore, this process will take time, and cannot be adopted all at once.

To do this, we need to the proponents of these positions to work together
to plan and implement such a transition. I view the current EME proposal as
an initial step on that path, and not the final step.

An ideological stance which demands pure-FOSS in one step is simply not
workable.