- From: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 10 Jan 2014 18:00:16 +0100
- To: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Mark Watson: > And there currently exists no common understanding regarding the terms > "open" and "open standard" within the W3C. > > > Regarding "open standard" I believe the W3C has signed up to open-stand.org. Correct. But the problem is that the definition and principles used by open-stand.org are not precise enough to help: Even requiring FRAND-licenses is allowed: http://open-stand.org/principles/ > *If* Tim Bernes-Lee and the W3C decide to promote a specification to > become an "open standard" which can not be implemented using copyleft > Open Source licenses due to a fundamental incompatibility *then* the > discussion here would have failed. So far such a decision does not seem > to have been made. > > > FWIW, EME *can* be fully implemented under a copyleft open source > license on platforms that expose the necessary capabilities. That is > presently only Windows, but nontheless. I am working on a more precise formulation of the incompatibility issue. Cheers, Andreas
Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 17:00:49 UTC