- From: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 16 Jan 2014 15:32:25 +0100
- To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Cc: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>, "RĂ¼diger Sonderfeld" <ruediger@c-plusplus.de>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >>> A DRM implementation cannot be open source either. >> >> There are several counter-examples, for example OMA DRM. > > We've been over this before. The key question is whether what's > shipped to users is still under Open Source licensing terms *only*. > It's not that interesting if some Open Source code goes into an > end-user product, but the end-user product as a whole is proprietary. > Some BSD code in Windows doesn't make Windows Open Source as a whole. > Quite a bit more BSD code in OS X doesn't make OS X Open Source as a > whole. +1 >> However, as explained above, it's entirely possible for a FOSS browser to >> integrate with a non-FOSS CDM that is distributed separately, for example >> with the OS. > > It seems to me that people in this thread are not only interested in > FOSS browsers but also in FOSS operating systems. That is a key point. Maybe Mozilla Firefox can live on proprietary operating systems which contain and offer DRM "content protection" or maybe not. But Debian *can not* include such "features", it would be excluded *because* it is open, to help protect *closed* technology. Cheers, Andreas
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 14:34:49 UTC