- From: Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:11:49 -0600
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 20:21 -0700, David Singer wrote: > On Jul 5, 2013, at 23:39 , Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> 1) THE W3C IS NOT WORKING ON A DRM SOLUTION! > >> (Shouting most certainly intended. You can repeat this falsehood as often as > >> you wish, it will not magically make it true). > > > > But it is fitting the gloves for the working hands of Digital > > RESTRICTIONS Management to fit into. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT > > THAT!(Shouting most certainly intended.) > > > > Again also: what other standards has the W3C set that cannot be > > implemented in free software? > > > EME can be implemented in free software. Even some 'lightweight' DRMs can. > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > I know that EME can be implemented in Free Software but it's the Digital Restrictions Management I was referring to. When you speak of "lightweight" Digital Restrictions Management, do you mean "breakable"? It's my understanding that breakable Digital Restrictions Management wouldn't satisfy the parties that are involved in the W3C that are demanding it. So what other W3C standards can't be implemented in Free Software? I don't know of any myself and aside from suggestions that /maybe/ there could be a weak DRM implementation done in Free Software that could appease people, no one can seem to answer this question. -- /* Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. Visit GNU.org * FSF.org * Trisquel.info */
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 04:12:20 UTC