Re: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

On 1/16/2014 3:31 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> I have not heard about any objections from the Free Software Community about
>> any of the Open Web Platform (OWP) specs other than EME.
>>
>> Accordingly, a subset of the OWP which removes EME would more accurately be
>> characterized as a "profile" of the OWP, rather than a fork of the OWP.
> The above implies that you consider EME to to be part of the Open Web
> Platform. On what basis? On the basis that EME alone (without a CDM)
> is non-proprietary even though all its current and expected
> deployments involve a proprietary CDM and, therefore, the actual uses
> of EME fall outside the Open Web?

To rephrase in a way that I hope you would agree:

I have not heard about any objections from the Free Software Community 
about any of the W3C specs other than EME.

Accordingly, a subset of W3C specs which removes EME would more 
accurately be characterized as a "profile" of the W3C specs, rather than 
a fork of the W3C specs.

>
> Quoting myself from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0052.html
> 'I think it's wrong to commandeer the term "Open Web" to mean "uses
> some W3C stuff" when it originally meant "doesn't include the
> proprietary stuff". That is, the involvement of Microsoft-proprietary,
> Google-proprietary or Foobar-proprietary CDM should disqualify
> something from being part of the Open Web. The use of the
> to-be-W3C-blessed API to communicate with the proprietary component
> should not be enough to qualify something as being part of the Open
> Web--neither should "uses a smaller proprietary box than before".'
>
> Quoting Mark from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Oct/0232.html
> "It's clear that DRM itself - whether in <object> plugins or CDMs - is
> outside the 'Open Web'."
>

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 14:49:09 UTC