- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:24:49 -0800
- To: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
- Cc: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote: > 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)! If anything has this effect, it's certainly not W3C recommendations, as we have extensively discussed. ...Mark > > Greetings, > Norbert
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 15:25:16 UTC