Re: Need for culture access with non-mainstream OSes (was Re: Campaign...)

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