> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:49:06 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> 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 <[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.
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
