- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 05:39:25 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- CC: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 6/5/2013 5:08 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >> 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? > That Open Source and Free Software are about downstream freedoms. > > Some licenses don't account for non-copyright restrictions on those > freedoms, because the licenses predate the use of other restrictions > (Tivoization in the case of GPLv2) or because the initial licensor > holds no patents and the law only applies copyright by default, so the > initial feels no need to release recipients of patent disadvantages. > Yet, compatibility with a license that fails to account for > non-copyright restrictions on downstream freedoms doesn't mean that > the downstream freedoms associated with Open Source and Free Software > are there. And many licenses that account for copyright allow > intermediaries to opt not to grant the same copyright permission > downstream. > > People who say production CDMs are incompatible with Open Source > observe that they can't come with the downstream freedoms associated > with Open Source. I.e. they consider what freedoms the recipients of a > production CDM receive. You seem to be looking at this from the > perspective "If a CDM vendor receives code under Open Source license > Foo, can the CDM vendor incorporate that code into a CDM without > violating the license the code came under?" Obviously, the answer is > "yes" for Open Source licenses that don't try to ensure that > intermediaries don't reduce downstream freedoms. > Exactly. Quite apart from the general debate about whether EME is a good idea, there is a narrow discussion about license compatibility. I had asserted that EME was implementable in open source from the perspective of the license. Norbert asserted that if a spec is not implementable in GPL [3] it is probably not implementable in open source. I think we all recognize that this is not accurate, that a spec can be implementable in open source but not GPL. Which does not mean that it is a good idea or provides downstream freedom. That indeed is a different debate.
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 09:39:34 UTC