Re: What is the "open web" ?

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

In this mail I'm not comparing anything with anything else. I'm just trying
to understand the differences in opinion. I imagine everyone has some
criteria by which they judge whether some given function should or
shouldn't be part of the open web. I'm trying to get to what those are.
*Then* we can talk about how different implementations of content
protection measure on those criteria. Don't assume because I mention some
example that I am claiming it is just like DRM. I'm not claiming anything
about DRM here.


>
> 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.
>

Certainly it can be implemented entirely in free software, as far as I
understand. But *in practice*, for the performance many applications
expect, you need a graphics card, and these are not (yet) Free. Again, I'm
not making a comparison with DRM here, just throwing out examples to try
and understand people's positions.

...Mark


>
>
>
>
>  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>[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
>
>