Re: What is the "open web" ?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:

> Le lun. 03/06/13, 14:08, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Le 4 juin 2013 à 00:17, Mark Watson a écrit :
>>>> I think it's clear that the W3C specifications have to be implementable RF. I am talking about the case where those APIs rely (explicitly or effectively) on underlying system capabilities that are not part of the W3C specification.
>>>
>>> Understood. Let's see.
>>>
>>> For example the <video> element is used to play a video. The video format is orthogonal to the functionality. People may use things such as H264, ogg/theora, etc. It is an issue because for some developers (opensource and non open), they would not have the money to implement the support for some of the formats, but let's say manageable. W3C is looking for an encumbered format (difficult task).
>>>
>>> In the past, the main formats for images were GIF and JPEG. GIF has been an issue when Compuserve started to claim its patent rights. The consequences led small developers (opensource and non open) to abandon the development of their software because they could not pay the license fees. It also led to the creation of PNG (the first W3C spec ever published) to be able to have a format with similar features (non destructive compression, transparency, etc.)
>>>
>>> In the system which is being discussing, currently, will it be **usable** by itself and/or in a combination with at least one open counterpart.
>>
>> Since the EME spec doesn't specify the CDMs, someone could certainly
>> create an open CDM (for whatever definition of open they prefer) and
>> EME would work with that.
>
> This is a dubious statement.

Why? There's a trivial existence proof in the clear key CDM. I see no
reason why there could not be others.

As I said, whether and to whom such CDMs would be useful is a
different question.

...Mark

>
> The definition of what is referred to as “open” in the context of
> software is very well defined by two bodies (amongst others)
>
> - The Open Source Initiative
> - the Free Software Foundation
>
> There are other orgs, but these definitions define the same thing.
>
> --
> Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org
> FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal
> FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/
>
> Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 13:58:26 UTC