Re: What is the "open web" ?

On 02/06/13 20:09, Mark Watson wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is the case; I believe that it's true that there are
>> GPS chips and graphics cards out there with open source drivers,
>> including for accelerated 3D. If you believe these examples hold, can
>> you say exactly which part of the GPS or 3D stacks is entirely
>> unavailable as open source software for any existing hardware?
> 
> I mean the hardware itself and the software/firmware that runs on it.

I don't think there's anything, other than time, skill or intelligence,
which prevents someone building a GPU which runs WebGL at a decent
speed. E.g.: http://www.opengpu.net/EN/

I believe the same is true of Wifi, although I know less about it. If
there are unavoidable patents in the way, that's unfortunate - but such
patents do not apply in all countries, they expire eventually, and that
can be considered a regrettable situation which we have so far managed
to avoid in Web standards. (Although not entirely in the /de facto/ Web
- see H.264.)

> So, that would exclude anything where the patent landscape was such
> that any performant implementation would require non-RF licenses, for
> example wireless Internet technology ?

I think that non-RF patents have no place in any system described as
open, no.

>> However, if EME/CDM comes to exist and is robust, and is used for web
>> video, then no amount of time or effort alone will allow coders to
>> legally implement the system such that it plays the same videos. They
>> need a contract with (i.e. permission from) an appropriate DRM provider
>> (or more than one).
> 
> What would be your opinion if the DRM capabilities were included in
> hardware, such as a graphics card, and a driver could be implemented
> as open source without permissions / licenses ? Just trying to
> understand where you draw the line.

It would seem to me that your system would still only operate at the
pleasure of the DRM owner. (If they had no way of deactivating or
refusing to issue licenses to your card, they have no comeback if you
manage to find a flaw in its DRM.) You would also be required to buy
particular DRM-compatible hardware rather than being able to have a free
choice of hardware.

I think there are more problematic and less problematic ways of
implementing DRM, and the problems can be large or small in many domains
- user choice of hardware, privacy, transparency, software freedom, etc.
So "drawing lines" is difficult. But I can't imagine a DRM system which
could be reasonably and accurately described as "open", or be an
official part of something so described.

Gerv

Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 10:07:14 UTC