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

2012/3/13 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>

> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:04:10 -0000, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>  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.
>>
>
> I don't know how much member companies are entitled to, but I was under
> impression that W3C is driven by ideology, not by business requirements of
> 3rd parties, and that W3C's ideology was much more aligned with FOSS's than
> RIAA/MPAA's.
>
> To be clear: I'm not saying that Web or innovation should be limited to
> FOSS or even W3C-approved technologies, just that W3C may not be the most
> appropriate place to for a spec that is intended to be an enabler for
> non-RF technologies.


CDM implementations that may not be FOSS-implementable *are* at this time
(but not necessarily in the future) a business requirement for the
commercial video provider members of the W3C, irrespective of the fact that
those requirements derive from 3rd parties.

The W3C is driven by its membership in concert with the W3C team. The
general public also contributes to but does not determine the output of the
W3C.