Re: What is the "open web" ?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:

> Le lun. 03/06/13, 08:17, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Le 3 juin 2013 à 04:09, Mark Watson a écrit :
>>>> So, that would exclude anything where the patent landscape was such
>>>> that any performant implementation would require non-RF licenses, for
>>>> example wireless Internet technology ?
>>>
>>> It seems an abuse of language.
>>>
>>> * any implementation
>>> * performant implementation (a subset of any implementation)
>>> * "would require non-RF licenses"
>>>
>>> There is nothing which is from a technology point of view requiring a
>>> patent. Patents systems are here to promote a certain idea of our societies
>>> infrastructures. Some people cherish it, some not.
>>>
>>> The W3C has adopted the RF patent policy for the same reasons to
>>> allow/promote a certain idea of our society. The right to implement any Web
>>> related systems without encumbrance for the developers (with or without
>>> deep pockets).
>>
>> So, this is where I am trying to understand the diversity of opinions.
>>
>> Clearly there are people who believe it's acceptable to include something
>> in web standards even if it effectively requires the use of proprietary
>
> What do you mean exactly by “effectively requires”?

W3C standards do not normatively require proprietary components.
Neither does EME. But in practice, the motivating use-case for EME
(let's just say Hollywood content) does require proprietary
components.

So, by 'effectively require', I mean a case where the requirement is
derived from the requirements of an important class of users of the
API, not from the API specification itself.

I don't think EME is the only example of such an API, though I am not
claiming that there is nothing different about EME compared to these
other examples. I'm just trying to focus in on exactly what the
difference is.

>
>> components, provided those components meet some conditions (presumably
>> including being widely available on multiple platforms with some common
>> functionality that can be abstracted by the web API). I expect people
>> differ on what the conditions should be and I'd like to better understand
>> that. I understand from your mail and a couple of others that some people
>> don't believe this is acceptable under any conditions.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If the "patent landscape" is such that it becomes not possible to
>>> implement something with that idea as a corner stone, then we have to go
>>> around [1].
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ...Mark
>
> The devil is in the details. How far would you consider system
> capabilities to be “underlying” and thus legitimately not part of
> the W3C specification?

That's one of the questions where I'd like to understand the spread of
opinion. What do you think ?

For me, it seems that if multiple widely deployed Operating Systems
offer a capability with broadly similar APIs then  it's reasonable to
consider standardizing how those capabilities are exposed to the web
platform.

...Mark
>
>
> --
> 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 14:02:25 UTC