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

EME itself can be compatible with GPL-2, but EME alone are useless and
require of CDMs, that are their main complement and that by definition are
not compatible, so the tandem of EME-CDM combined is not compatible with
GPL-2 at all.
El 07/06/2013 04:52, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> escribió:

> 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.
>>
>>
>