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

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:

> 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 this specific respect it is. I'm not claiming any more than that.


> In contrast to other web APIs Open Source implementations of EME/CDM
> combinations are useless for the stated purpose of EME.
>

Since such implementations are at present hypothetical - and hence their
properties are unknown - I don't see how you or I or anyone else could know
whether they are useful or not.


>
> > 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.
>

For my part it's because I don't have the necessary security expertise and
because I don't believe what I am proposing is incompatible 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.
>

There's a simple solution to that ;-)


>
> > 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


You might be right, but I don't believe we have much evidence one way or
the other just yet. Such a statement can only be established by
experimentation.


> *and* a standard which can only
> be implemented by integrating secret modules is not an Open Standard.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>