Re: Registration of CDMs as a solution proposal (was Re: "Revealed: how Microsoft...")

I have read the proposal and it's very fair, but this give me a question:
if specifications are required to be public except some encryption keys,
what's the diference with the current status using passwords, encryption
and certificates? By definition, I find both equals... :-/
El 13/07/2013 10:24, "Nikos Roussos" <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
escribió:

> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 14:31 -0700, Mark Watson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:
> >         "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >         > > Robert O'Callaghan of Mozilla proposed that all CDMs be
> >         registered
> >         > > and that a condition of registration be publication of the
> >         source
> >         > > code
> >         >
> >         > Interesting solution... Independently of the fact I'm
> >         against EME,
> >         > since this would mean a reduced and clearly common set of
> >         CDMs, I
> >         > agree with that solution.
> >
> >         +1
> >
> >         since it would also greatly increase the likelihood of being
> >         able to
> >         run the CDMs on Free Software operating system platforms,
> >         therefore
> >         significantly reducing the risk in regard to the continued
> >         viability
> >         of such operating system platforms that I'm so concerned
> >         about.
> >
> >
> > I see, so this is an area where there could be some advantage to
> > working on this in W3C then ?
>
> Just a clarification. You wrote:
> "all CDMs be registered and that a condition of registration be
> publication of the source code"
>
> Robert says on this bug:
> "Documentation must be published describing the complete operation of
> the CDM"
>
> Those are two different things. Am I missing something?
>
>
> Andreas' suggestion on this same bug is also interesting
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944#c14
>
>
>
>
>