- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:46:49 -0400
- To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 4/24/2013 4:27 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > On 04/24/2013 11:07 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> 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. > When writing the article Henri cited, I had the "user freedom" > interpretation in mind, specifically, as those freedoms are necessary to > enable user-innovators and the unaffiliated developers of new > technologies ("disruptive technologies," as Christensen describes them). > I was using open source as an example of those freedoms, not as the sole > criterion. > >>>> 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. > Many of W3C's policies are oriented toward making the Web freely > implementable and freely usable -- in the sense of independence, not > "free of charge," although free of charge comes through in places too. > The royalty-free patent policy assures that no permission is required to > develop a new implementation, and that a developer won't be subject to > licenses or escalating costs if the implementation succeeds. > Implementations shouldn't have dependencies on mutable permissions and > preferences of others in the field. > > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements > includes 5.7, "may not impose any further conditions or restrictions on > the use of any technology, intellectual property rights, or other > restrictions on behavior of the licensee, but may include reasonable, > customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of the license > relationship such as the following: choice of law and dispute resolution;" I believe this is a statement about restrictions on the sublicensing of patents under the patent policy, not about the degree of freedom associated with the spec per se. > >>> (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. > And that seems to be part of the challenge, that EME specifies an > CDM-shaped hole, where known CDMs impose licensing constraints that > wouldn't permit an independent browser developer to implement. How might > we better satisfy that dependency? I believe that the Working Group is already discussing how to make sure that the CDM-shaped hole enhances interop. > > --Wendy > >>> 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 20:47:02 UTC