Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Rüdiger Sonderfeld
<ruediger@c-plusplus.de>wrote:

> Hello Mark,
>
> > 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.
>
> The EME provides an interface to some rather underspecified module (of
> which
> the requirements are apparently confidential).  The module therefore
> becomes
> part of the EME's functionality.  If someone would try to implement the
> EME's
> functionality under a free software license then as a result they would
> also
> require to implement the functionality of the exposed modules.
>

My point was that there is at least one case where that functionality is
already present in the Operating System and exposed through public APIs.
So, in that one case, you can have a browser which is completely FOSS and
which supports EME, just as you can have a browser which is completely FOSS
but which benefits from (other) proprietary technologies in the OS or
hardware.

This is just one platform, I am not claiming any more than that, but that
proof point refutes the argument that EME can never be implemented in FOSS.

Of course, when the object is to have the entire software stack, including
the OS and firmware, be FOSS, then it's true that you cannot play back
protected/restricted content. EME doesn't create or change that situation.

...Mark
 



>
> What technical limitations are there to implementing this functionality
> under
> a free software license?  Is the implementation of the module publicly and
> openly specified under guidelines compatible to the W3C's and OpenStand's?
>
> It seems obvious that this is not possible because the exposed modules
> inherently rely on being complete secrets.
>
> What are the legal limitations?  The 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty requires
> parties to the treaty to implement laws against circumvention of DRM
> methods.
> This has been implemented in the US through the DMCA and the EU has also
> passed a directive to that regard.
>
> Therefore it seems to me that implementing the EME with all its implicit or
> explicit functionality under a free software license would not only be
> technically unfeasible due to the lack of specifications but it would also
> be
> illegal.
>
> The W3C's principles say (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission)
>
> "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all
> people,
> whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language,
> culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability."
>
> How can this goal be reached if the EME proposal (implicitly) depends on
> non-
> portable ("only Windows") closed source proprietary modules which are
> illegal
> to reimplement.
>
> Regards,
> Rüdiger
>