Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com> 6:40 AM (47 minutes ago) to Nikos On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Nikos Roussos < comzeradd@mozilla-community.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 09:50 -0700, Mark Watson wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote: > > Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > > <snip> > You are right that even if W3C rejects the EME proposal, the content > providers and some browsers, who want to have a DRM solution, will go > ahead and implement it. What the users will lose if this implementation > is a W3C recommendation is that they'll lose an ally on the fight for > the Open Web. > > It's safe to say that there is a consensus among those who object to > EME, that we believe it contradicts with Open Web principles and > therefore W3C's mission. If EME gets approved the most important thing > we'll lose is W3C. > > -- > Nikos Roussos > http://roussos.cc > > As an example I invite you to consider the implications of the W3C Patent Policy recommendation and the effect it has had on creating standards that are free and open. ---- 2. Licensing Goals for W3C Recommendations In order to promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-RF>(RF) basis. Subject to the conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential>exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms. To this end, Working Group charters will include a reference to this policy and a requirement that specifications produced by the Working Group will be implementable on an RF basis, to the best ability of the Working Group and the Consortium. ---- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing -- NSA: All your data are belong to us.
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 11:26:03 UTC