- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:07:12 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 4/24/2013 8:27 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >> Dom, in framing this as a question about open source compatible DRM was >> anchoring the discussion on a long-established W3C practice to make sure >> that our standards are implementable in open source. I was merely pointing >> out that this would be possible with DReaM. > This still interprets "open source" as "disclosed source" instead of > the freedoms associated with Open Source which happen to require > source disclosure. Yes, that was my interpretation of Dom's question. If he intended his question as you interpreted it, then my answer did not address this question. > >> To your point, W3C could certainly add a new practice to make sure that our >> standards are compatible with the "no 'disclosed source code except keys'" >> category. In that case DReaM like solutions would indeed be excluded. > I thought it was already effectively a requirement that W3C specs be > implementable in ways that grant the downstream freedoms associated > with Open Source I have not seen that in my three years at W3C, but I would appreciate pointers to where that practice was established. > (and that this was one of the reasons why the > boundaries of the EME spec have been drawn to exclude the actual > production CDMs). W3C has not received any requirements to work on actual production CDMs. > It would be news to me if the current policy merely > required W3C specs to be compatible with source disclosure. After all, > the RF Patent Policy is relevant to downstream freedoms but orthogonal > to source disclosure. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 15:07:16 UTC