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

On 6/6/2013 10:07 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
>> I'm not an attorney, but I agree that the EME draft document may be
>> incompatible with GPLv3.
> Definitely, I agree.
>
> Re. the premises you stated I held:
>
>>    * A premise that W3C has a Recommendation in this space.  At the
>>      moment there is a draft proposal.
> That's correct.  Sloppy language on my part; I was envisaging the state
> of affairs should the draft proposal proceed to a recommendation.
>
>>    * A premise that EME = DRM.
> The reason EME is being proposed is to enable DRM.  Netflix, Microsoft
> and Google are interested in it for no other purpose.  No-one (to my
> knowledge) has proposed that EME might be used for any *other* purpose
> than interop with DRM systems.  Therefore, EME is a component of DRM
> systems, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> However, note that I didn't mention EME in my premises.  I was quite
> specifically talking about CDMs, as they are the reason for the
> existence of EME.  I addressed CDMs because they're central to your hope
> that movie companies will abandon closed-source, proprietary DRM
> systems.
>
>>    * A premise that GPLv2 (which may be consistent with EME) is not a
>>      FOSS license.
> That's not my opinion.  GPLv2 is definitely a FOSS licence, and an
> implementation of EME could be compatible with GPLv2.  I think we're
> agreed on that, too.
>
> So, restated, & elaborated:
>
> Consider what will happen if the EME proposal is accepted, and becomes a
> recommendation.  Vendors will use this to interop with DRM CDMs (the
> sole purpose of EME).
>
>   - 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
>
> This is equivalent to EME being incompatible with any FOSS license.  EME
> exists for one purpose, and that purpose is incompatible with FOSS
> licenses.

I don't understand.  You said GPLv2 is FOSS.  You said that EME could be 
compatible with GPLv2.   So how is EME incompatible with any FOSS license?

>
>> I hope my response above addresses your question.
> Not exactly, but it's facilitated some clarification, which I greatly
> appreciate.
>

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 02:52:51 UTC