RE: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:49:06 -0500
> From: jeff@w3.org
> To: hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
> CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Subject: 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.

I dispute Tim's interpretations of the principles of the web, and dispute that DRM is compatible with the open web, and this is a core issue.
 
> 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.

DRM is a restriction, a mis-feature, a negative.   If a profile is the subtraction of features, then subtracting the EME mis-features is an addition!   In other words subtracting the EME restrictions would permit EME implementations that do not have these restrictions - an EME implementation without restrictions might be a 'profile'.   Your position also ignores the legal context - people might still be persecuted for using the 'profile' with the EME restrictions removed!

cheers
Fred