- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:13:26 -0400
- To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
On 6/5/2013 12:06 PM, Hugo Roy wrote: > Le mer. 05/06/13, 11:14, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>: >> On 6/5/2013 10:57 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote: >> I've been trying to establish the following points in this discussion. >> >> 1. Today there are no W3C policies which would forbid EME from >> consideration. >> 2. I accept the fact that one could want such policies. They could >> be proposed and even accepted in time. But, simply, these would be >> new policies. >> 3. In terms of freedom to access content without EME - there are >> competing principles (cf blog post). I don't denigrate the >> principled arguments that content should be "free" in a FOSS sense. >> But there are principles on the other side as well, that we are >> balancing when we say that we can include EME in the Open Web >> Platform, but not a proprietary CDM. > The question of content being “"free" in a FOSS sense” or not is > completely irrelevant to EME. The question of content being free > of charge is also irrelevant to EME. > > The problem is with EME effectively requiring users to install > non-free software, because EME is designed to answer needs of > unfree CDM. > Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for correcting my expression of this idea.
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 00:13:31 UTC