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

Mark Watson:
> Now, you, Duncan and others argue that *in practice* the only purpose of
> EME is DRM and DRM is incompatible with FOSS (and also with W3C policies,
> specifically on RF licensing). Further, that this should be a reason not to
> specify EME in W3C, despite the paragraph above.
> 
> This amounts to a request that the entire implementation below any given
> web API must be implementable in FOSS, however far down the stack you go.
> As discussed in other threads, the request extends below the OS/Application
> boundary and further to firmware running on hardware components of the
> system. This may be a noble goal, but it's a very strong requirement.

So far this is not only a noble goal, but there is nothing fundamental
preventing it and in fact it has already been satisfied.

This requirement can only be considered to be "very strong" by
organisations who do not care. True: a small number of hardware
manufacturers make this more difficult than others. But it is not a
requirement for Open Standards that they can be supported on specific
hardware when there is no fundamental reason inherent in the standard
why no alternative hardware can be used to implement the Open Standard.

> Clearly there can exist FOSS implementations of the whole stack below EME,
> but as with other web APIs these may not be suitable for all applications.

No, please stop claiming that EME is like "other web APIs". It is not.
In contrast to other web APIs Open Source implementations of EME/CDM
combinations are useless for the stated purpose of EME.

> However, it's argued that there are no applications where such an
> implementation would be suitable. I'm not sure how we could know this when
> there remain no proposals for FOSS-compatible content protection.

Why don't you or any other of the EME-proponents provide such a proposal
instead of promoting something which is not compatible with the Open Web
Platform.

> I also find it strange that so many of
> the people arguing strongly for non-DRM solutions to this problem do not
> seem interested in developing or experimenting with them.

Simply said: I am interested in reading suggestions, but I am already
spending to much time on preventing EME being named as an Open Standard.

> To drop EME on this basis would imply first that we give up immediately on
> the possibility of a useful FOSS-compatible CDM *and* that we accept the
> requirement that the whole implementation be FOSS-compatible.

There can be no useful Open Source CDM *and* a standard which can only
be implemented by integrating secret modules is not an Open Standard.

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 15:22:09 UTC