- From: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:17:55 +0100
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:32 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote: > > > On 2014-01-10 07:11 Mark Watson wrote: > > > 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. > > > > we've been over this... > > > > EME is only half the system, > > the other half is an unspecified black box by design > > > > so, no, it can not be fully implemented, half the implementation > > depends on the blessing/help from the CDM-manufacturer, which > > automatically means anything non-mainstream can forget about it > > > > Please re-read what I said more carefully. When the CDM component is > included in the platform and available through public APIs, then a > complete working implementation of client-side content protection > using EME can be supported in a FOSS browser. I believe this is the > case (or soon will be) for Windows. Unless you consider “Microsoft Windows” to be “non-mainstream”, this is not a counterexample to what cobaco wrote. W3C must not develop recommendations that will (if they're widely adopted by the “content industry”) have the effect of making it impossible to access a significant part of culture (that which is distributed by the “content industry”) using non-mainstream operating systems (including non-mainstream versions of Free Software operating systems)! Greetings, Norbert
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 10:18:37 UTC