4 ms·

The issue I ran into was in acquiring the necessary licenses that you mentioned. Verified Media Path (VMP) can be used to verify the authenticity of the browser

The issue I ran into was in acquiring the necessary licenses that you mentioned. Verified Media Path (VMP) can be used to verify the authenticity of the browser platform. I believe it uses public key cryptography for identification by Widevine's license servers. It seems like it would be trivial for Widevine to revoke access if there were ever abuse. I have more details in a blog post I wrote last month. https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked-my-browser/ https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked...

repolfx 7y ago
Look carefully at the response they sent you. Their perception is you're asking for a license for an open source product, i.e. a license that would remain valid even as random people contribute code or fork the product. That clearly cannot work, conceptually. If you had a private, proprietary fork of your browser that was being distributed and nobody else could modify it or contribute code that would undo the DRM, and you were willing to sign giant contracts spelling out in exacting detail what features you could and could not add around video (e.g. no download feature), and the Widevine people thought you'd actually have the financial resources to defend your private fork against hooking, memory overwrite and other attacks (you don't think proprietary Chrome is just Chromium+library, right?) in a long term manner, then they might have been willing to work with you. But then you'd be a company, not an individual open source developer. Rights enforcement and open source are not compatible.