> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:22:49 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this > community group > > Fred Andrews: > > but the W3C has already decided to recharter the HTML WG > > to include content protection including DRM and thus have endorsed DRM > > as consistent with the principles of the web. > > That is not entirely correct. > > "supporting playback of protected content" was added to the charter, but > that term was left undefined and DRM is not mentioned in the charter: > http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-charter.html > > Some people consider watermarking to be a (weak) form of DRM and content > protection. > > And there currently exists no common understanding regarding the terms > "open" and "open standard" within the W3C.
I understand a lot has been left undefined, but it is clear that the charter includes user agent restrictions on the use of content, and thus it clearly includes mis-features - otherwise the EME would not be within the charter. I would even suggest that leaving things undefined might be a tactic, and that it advantages the proponents of the EME by making it easier for them to deflect criticism - it's hard to argue about the technical merits of their proposal when the requirements are poorly defined. They have refused to define terms such are DRM. I also understand that the term 'open standard' is disputed. I have introduced the term 'mis-feature' that contradicts an 'open' discussion. > *If* Tim Bernes-Lee and the W3C decide to promote a specification to > become an "open standard" which can not be implemented using copyleft > Open Source licenses due to a fundamental incompatibility *then* the > discussion here would have failed. So far such a decision does not seem > to have been made. This test is not really useful, as others have pointed out. Even a do-not-copy flag is a mis-feature, and this could be implemented in a copyleft Open Source licensed user agent. I believe Tim and the W3C have added mis-features to the HTML WG. Surely we are entitled to judge them based on the charter they endorse and are promoting, rather than waiting until they publish, endorse, and promote specifications? The EFFs formal objection covers many issues well, https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objections do not appear to be limited to the above test, and directly address the charter. Your own formal objection to the EME FPWD references bugs I filed and defended. I would encourage you to think over your position and the EFFs position and communicate it to the group? You block my proposals and have claimed not to agree with me, but I really do not understand your position. Would I be right that you and/or the EFF were prepared to endorse the EME if Tim agreed to hold a discussion on the matter? If so then this would would have been very damaging to the open web. I would be more than happy to give Tim and the W3C more time to consider their position, but only if they suspend the change to the charter and suspend work that depends on it, otherwise we are just being played while they consolidate their position. I understand that the EFF is a member of the W3C so there are lots of things you could do. You could publish blocking specifications, mis-features can be countered with features, publish any and every extension to the EME that might be deemed circumvention as a standard. Challenge and test undefined positions. What are you doing except supporting Tim's and the W3C's position? cheers, Fred
