Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Tab Atkins Jr.:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> That's a lot of words for just trying to state a variant of "you're
>>> intolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance".
>>
>> Actually Tab, not exactly.
>>
>> I am suggesting that if the web is to truly remain Open, *anyone*
>> can contribute a standard to the larger stack, and that no one group
>> or philosophy should set themselves up as gatekeepers, which is the
>> net effect of what the EFF and others appear to be attempting to do.
>
> That's exactly what I said.  Trying to assert that it's "not truly
> Open" to block things that reduce open-ness is double-talk.

It would be double-talk if it leads to a contradiction. But that depends
on the definitions of "Open" and "open-ness".

One problem seems to be that there is no agreement regarding the
definition of "Open Web Platform" within the W3C. So far that might not
have been a big problem, but it is one in the context of DRM and EME.

Some potentially relevant material is available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

But the W3C belongs to the official supporters of Open Stand. One of the
principles is:

"Balance. Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by any
particular person, company or interest group."

Another Open Stand principle is:

"Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants
to collective empowerment by striving for standards that ... provide
global interoperability ..."
http://open-stand.org/principles/

EME is not only dominated by an interest group (DRM proponents) but it
is by design ignoring another interest group (the Open Source community)
because DRM is globally not interoperable with an Open Source environment.

***

Please send replies to public-restrictedmedia@w3.org. Thanks.

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 09:52:42 UTC