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

Jeff,

I said that it was possible to implement EME in a fashion compatible
with GPLv2.  However, my point was that:

 - EME exists for the sole purpose of enabling DRM through interop with
 CDMs

 - 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

Therefore this proposal is *in practice* incompatible with all FOSS
licenses, as it exists solely for the point of interop with binaries
that will themselves be incompatible with FOSS licenses.

This is why I dispute your claim that EME != DRM.  EME exists for the
*sole* purpose of enabling DRM.

-- 
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013, at 07:52 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> 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 06:40:31 UTC