Re: What is the "open web" ?

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2013/06/02 21:09, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>
Sorry about that. There are Apple police here in the Bay Area who stop
anyone not faithfully carrying an iSomething ;-)


>
> Sent from my computer that has a Microsoft sticker underneath it even
> though I didn't pay the license but I guess it means I accept to run
> non-free software and hence should embrace DRM. /s
>
>
> This whole discussion about non-free drivers for graphic boards and GPS is
> 100% irrelevant to EME.
>
>
> Mark, again and again you've been kindly replied to on the subject and
> from various angles. Even if all GPU's run non-free code it's still
> irrelevant, unless they run non-free code so they can implement
> functionality described in the W3 spec. Please let me know if I am wrong
> here.


I am just trying to understand the opinions here, so apologies if my
examples aren't good ones. What do you think about GPS, or 3G wireless ?


>
>
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
>
> Again:
>
> - There are no functional reasons that would oblige a graphic board or GPS
> chip to run using non-free code. A chip that does use non-free code is a
> choice that remains unrelated to the W3, for now.


I don't believe there are today completely free, open, graphics card
implementations that are as performant as the proprietary ones. That could
change, of course. But many people seem to think that doesn't matter when
it comes to standardization of WebGL, say, and I am trying to understand
why. What are the conditions under which it makes sense to standardize APIs
that can only effectively be implemented using proprietary components (and
I know some people believe there are no such conditions, but there are also
other opinions).


>
>
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
>
>
> Instead, explain to me how this would fit with:
> http://www.w3.org/standards/**agents/Overview.html<http://www.w3.org/standards/agents/Overview.html>
>
> "We should be able to publish regardless of the software we use, the
> computer we have, the language we speak, whether we are wired or wireless,
> regardless of our sensory or interaction modes. We should be able to access
> the web from any kind of hardware that can connect to the Internet –
> stationary or mobile, small or large. W3C facilitates this listening and
> blending via international web standards. These standards ensure that all
> the crazy brilliance continues to improve a web that is open to us all."
>
>
> So (again), will I be able to publish EME (DRM'd content) regardless of
> the software I use ?
>

Could you start another thread with this question posed in more detail ? I
think it's off topic for this thread and I'm not sure I fully understand
the question.

...Mark


>
>
> I've already asked the above question, no reply. I am beginning to think
> this might be a tough question to answer.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>
>
>