On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 10:17:54 -0500 "Drew DeVault" <s...@cmpwn.com> wrote:
> I understand that we can implement DRM protocols in a way which just > says no, but I'd rather just say no to implementing DRM protocols at > all. We implement linux-dmabuf for obvious reasons, but I would prefer > to have DRM features in a separate protocol that we can refuse to > implement, as a message that DRM is not tolerated on our software. We > design our software with the users interests in mind, not our customers. That is a very good stance. I agree with that. > We won't block this if implemented as a separate protocol in the ext > namespace. We will officially NACK it, but ext protocols can still be > standardized even if NACKed. I do not know of a reason yet to make it an ext extension. I believe it will be a Weston extension for now, like a couple others that no other compositor implements (HDCP, debug log streams). If other compositors want to implement these extensions, then it might make sense to make it ext. Until then. Thanks, pq
pgpKmg3aEDjfl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
