- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 04:51:13 -0400
- To: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- CC: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 6/5/2013 4:26 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > Jeff Jaffe: >>> If you find that a specification is not implementable in GPL, it >>> probably is not implementable in open source software at all. >> I need further clarification. >> >> EME, for example, might not be implementable in GPLv3. But I wasn't >> aware that it was not implementable in other open source licenses such >> as Apache or MPL (or even GPLv2 for that matter). What am I missing? > CDMs which are relevant for the proponents of EME can not be implemented > as Open Source. EME without such CDMs is useless for the intended > purpose of EME. We should not discuss implementing useless software > using Open Source licenses. > > It does not help if someone implements anything using an Open Source > license when other legal restrictions (such as NDAs) prevent him or her > from providing the source code to others without conditions in addition > to those contained in the Open Source license. Such conditions might be > legally compatible with some "liberal" Open Source licenses, but some > conditions are not legally compatible with GPL3. I believe you have made this point aptly numerous times in the discussion group. But it is not what we are discussing here. The discussion here is a not a discussion of utility but a discussion of formal license compatibility > > Cheers, > Andreas >
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 08:51:23 UTC