- From: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:59:57 -0400
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>, "public-restrictedmedia\@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes: >> That content is *still* completely broken w.r.t. the open web. > > What I'm saying is just that there's no difference in this respect > between EME and <object>. The term 'open web' isn't well-enough > defined for us to make much progress with it. Is <object> part of the > 'open web' according to your definition ? > The difference, as has been said I'm sure many times by others before my randomly interjecting, is that *only* proprietary, non-interoperable, patented technologies fit the shape of the EME container. To accept the winking suggestion that a free software implementation *could* fit into the literal shape of the container -- it would just provide really bad and ineffective DRM -- is to accept an immediate, known, on-face degradation in the experience of the Web for those not using particular pieces of proprietary technology. This is why EME should not be a W3C recommendation, according to longstanding W3C principles that have nothing to do with requiring the entire Web be copyleft. This is fundamentally different from <object>, which can very well (and with a straight face) be satisfied in innumerable actual use cases without reliance on patented, non-interoperable, proprietary technologies. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:00:26 UTC