- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:44:43 -0400
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- CC: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, piranna@gmail.com, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
On 6/6/2013 7:13 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote: > Jeff, > >> when the practice was established to be compatible with open >> source, it was not an intention that W3C Recommendations must be >> implementable with every open source license. > That's a straw-man argument. The issue is not that the EME proposal is > incompatible with *any particular* FOSS license, it is that the EME > proposal is incompatible with *all* FOSS licenses. > > Put simply: > > - major content providers will not implement and release CDMs that can > be trivially bypassed > - a CDM released under *any* FOSS license is, by nature, trivial to > bypass > - therefore, no major content providers will release CDMs under FOSS > licenses > > Do you dispute either of those premises, or the conclusion? I honestly don't know whether content providers (here we mean Hollywood - because many content providers provide significant content (like music) without CDMs) will ultimately be satisfied with less strong restrictions. We saw over many years an evolution in how music was released on the Web. I think we are at the beginning of the discussion with movies. A great deal will depend on user behavior. If the majority of users refuse to accept DRM protected movies, I think that content providers will find other approaches - such as breakable, open-source, DRM. > > If not, then it follows that a DRM recommendation by the W3C is in > practice incompatible with any FOSS license. >
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 23:44:51 UTC