Re: What is the "open web" ?

On 2013/06/03 21:03, Mark Watson wrote:
> I'm not making a comparison with DRM here, just throwing out examples
> to try and understand people's positions.


Thanks for clarifying. I will clarify as well.


On one side with GPUs there is no requirement to have free or non-free 
software, with EME it's different. IMHO that is the key difference. The 
obfuscation of the software doesn't affect the capabilities of WebGL, it 
does for EME.

With WebGL, everyone can chose to use the software they want, either to 
create, publish, deliver or consume the content. The software's source 
availabilty isn't conditioned or influenced by the spec. Any part can be 
open or not, as long as they follow the standard they remain compatible.


With EME, it is very different, the consumer must install software 
provided/signed/authorised by the website to decode the content. It's 
not even just about Free/Open, even non-free software that follows the 
standard wont be able to render the content, indeed the consumer must 
run code provided by the website. If the user doesn't align their 
software to the website that diffuses EME then compatibility is lost.


In that respect, things like WebGL are "Open Web" compatible, whereas 
EME is not.



-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 10:24:20 UTC