On 1/16/2014 3:31 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Jaffe <[email protected]> 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'."
