On 11/18/2013 4:15 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
The reason that content protection is in scope for W3C is that we cannot
compete if we don't have a framework to accept protected content. We
would like to find a way to do that which is consistent with open web
principles.
But this is the problem: content protection as provided by
closed-source, proprietary CDM blobs is functionally equivalent to the
closed boxes with which you claim to be competing. You're not providing
an alternative to the closed boxes, you're merely providing a means to
interface to them. There is no competition there, only collusion.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
That's the reason that we have rejected anything
proprietary or patent encumbered from the Open Web Platform.
Only after an uproar from the community,
I'm not sure what you think we rejected after an uproar from the
community. W3C was the first to reject patent encumbered technology and
did it under the direction of Tim Berners-Lee.
just as is happening now with
your declaring DRM as in-scope.
* http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/01/the_free_webs_over_as/
* http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response
* http://www.advogato.org/article/352.html
Then, as now, the W3C started out down a path that would prove
disastrous to the Open Web. Then, as now, there was an outcry from
developers across the world.
Will you listen now, as you did then?
