Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

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