- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:06:45 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/06/03 17:25, Mark Watson wrote: > 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 ;-) It's not just the Bay Area, I think Apple has done a brilliant marketing job, I've seen it in other languages too. >> 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 > ? It's not about good or bad examples, it's just not comparable, it's like comparing apples and computers. The difference is the suggested requirement of non-free software in order to be fully functional. Is it technically required for a GPU to contain non-free code to fully render WebGL ? I don't think so (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Instead, it is a choice, the choice of the manufacturer to produce them and a choice for the user to purchase them. Because there is no technical recommendation from the W3 in regards to the license/obfuscation of the software needed on GPUs the W3 remains software-neutral in their influence and stance. It's open to all. You did ask if people would be okay with the "CDM restricting code" being in a graphics board firmware, therefore allowing a user to still run a free operating system with even free/open drivers. This reminds me of regional DVDs and the devices that were hardwired to respect that. I would find it awkward that the W3 promote such deficient design. My personal experience; Over a decade ago I bought 2 DVDs and rented 1 before I realised that it was intentionally designed to be broken. Indeed, I wanted to watch American AND French DVDs that I legally purchased, my DVD "player" disagreed. Since then I never bought or rented a DVD. But hey, we both know that most people's desire to consume DVDs is superior to their refusal to be bothered. > 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). Again, please do correct me if I am being ignorant; How is it that WebGL can only be implemented using proprietary components ? I sincerly do not understand how the WebGL spec requires non-free code to be implemented. >> Instead, explain to me how this would fit with: >> http://www.w3.org/standards/agents/Overview.html [1] >> >> "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. Sure (but not today). Cheers, -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 17:07:18 UTC