Re: Clarification

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> The CDM needs
>> to be built by someone that Cecil trusts to perform the build process
>> using the published compiler, the published CDM source and a
>> cryptographically strong random number generator for parametrizing the
>> compiler and for generating the CDM private key. That is, the source
>> disclosure would not involve the downstream freedoms associated with
>> Open Source.
>
> From that and a previous thread it seems it would be possible

Source disclosure would be possible in the theoretical technical
sense. In the practical technical sense, you'd need the postulated
obfuscating compiler (that would be held to a higher bar than what
closed-source DRM implementations use) to actually exist first.

In the legal sense of possibility, there would still hurdles--starting
with the CDM having to contain an H.264 decoder in practice.

On top of that, you'd need to get the whole thing actually approved by
whoever in Hollywood is in charge of deciding which DRM schemes get
movies and which don't.

Like I said in my previous email, don't hold your breath for the
source for a Hollywood-approved CDM getting publicly disclosed.

> for an open
> source browser to implement EME, and for their build to include the official
> key. Other people could compile the browser, but would not have the official
> key so would not be able to access the restricted content.

So the browser taken together with the CDM wouldn't be Open Source in
the sense of coming with the downstream freedoms associated with Open
Source, then. Open Source isn't just about source disclosure. Source
disclosure is a mere prerequisite for enabling the downstream
freedoms.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 13:23:21 UTC