Re: What is the "open web" ?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2013, at 3:06 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> 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/

You may be right, but today you need to buy a graphics card containing
non-free software. And you can be sure that the makers of those cards
have been filing patents on what they do for years, so equally
performant free solutions are going to be a challenge.

Having said that, I don't think many people see this as a huge problem
or a reason why WebGL should not be part of the web platform.

>
> 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.

Just to check I understand correctly, you would object to inclusion in
the web platform of APIs for any system capability that required
non-free licenses to implement ? Even if that capability is fully
standardized and widely available in commodity hardware modules for
all platforms ? (For example 3G wireless Internet modules.)

>
>>> 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.)

Yes.

> You would also be required to buy
> particular DRM-compatible hardware rather than being able to have a free
> choice of hardware.

For the sake of argument, lets suppose that your choice of hardware
does not restrict the set of services you can access, provided the
hardware supports this capability at all.

>
> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Well, this is getting off-topic, but there's OpenIPMP. But a DRM
system being open (anyone can build servers and matching clients) is
different from being able to build clients that work with someone
else's existing servers.

...Mark
>
> Gerv

Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 14:54:44 UTC