Re: No policy? Re: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

On 6/6/2013 9:14 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
>> 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.
> I'm not asking about an unknowable future state, I'm asking about the
> situation right now and for the foreseeable future (using the term
> foreseeable precisely).
>
> Do you disagree with any of my premises, or the conclusion that a DRM
> recommendation by the W3C is in practice incompatible with any FOSS
> license?

I'm not an attorney, but I agree that the EME draft document may be 
incompatible with GPLv3.

I don't agree that W3C has a DRM recommendation.

I'm not familiar with the universe of FOSS licenses so I can't answer 
your general question.  I'm not aware of any reason that EME would be 
incompatible with Apache, Mozilla, or GPLv2 licenses.

>
> Please forgive me if I seem harsh on this issue, but it feels to me
> (subjective language, I know) as though you are avoiding a direct answer
> to my question by inviting me to hope that all content providers follow
> the lead of a subset of the music industry, at some unspecified time in
> the future.

I don't mind your being harsh, but you need to understand that I can't 
give you a direct answer because your questions whose premise I disagree 
with.  For example, your question above had the following premises that 
I don't agree with:

  * A premise that W3C has a Recommendation in this space.  At the
    moment there is a draft proposal.
  * A premise that EME = DRM.
  * A premise that GPLv2 (which may be consistent with EME) is not a
    FOSS license.

I hope my response above addresses your question.