3 ms·
Why do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are very willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I
by duncan_bayne 13y ago
Why do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are very willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I think it's very clear who is unwilling to negotiate here.
It's true, though, that there's one point on which we aren't willing to negotiate: any W3C-endorsed standard must be implementable by anyone who chooses, without paying royalties or licensing patents.
EME falls foul of this requirement, because the CDMs with which it is intended to operate themselves fall foul.
- wmf 13y agoFree software people aren't willing to negotiate about the right to read and modify code but non-modifiable code is the only way that DRM can work.
- betterunix 13y agoCan you even name any other class of software that cannot work unless people are somehow forbidden to modify or even read the code? It sounds like this is a problem with DRM, not with the free software movement.
- duncan_bayne 13y agoViruses, worms, trojans, spyware (think the NSA), hardware verifiers (think laptops that only allow one brand of battery). There are a few.
- chc 13y agoAs a class, just about any program that depends on security through obscurity has this trait.
- malka 13y agoThere is no 'Security through obscurity'. At best, you will have the illusion of security, wich is worse than no security at all.
- chc 13y agoThis seems a bit like saying that there is no such thing as debugging because applications still have bugs afterward. I agree with the overall thrust that the security through obscurity is unreliable, but it is something, and it has even been effective to a limited degree on many occasions. (For example, many video game companies have employed defeatable security-through-obscurity successfully, because they only need to hold off the crackers for a couple of weeks.)
- betterunix 13y agoCan you name any software that relies on security through obscurity -- and I assume you mean obscurity from the user of the software, since nothing else seems relevant here -- that is not just a specific kind of DRM?
- wmf 13y agoI'm not making any kind of judgement or assigning blame, just stating the fact that free software is fundamentally incompatible with DRM. I'd prefer to see EME get killed. But as a practical matter, if we go into a negotiation with nothing that we're willing to concede, we can't be surprised if it stalls immediately.
- duncan_bayne 13y agoThere is plenty that we're willing to concede; as I've said, there is only one single point where negotiation is not an option - both from a FOSS and Open Web perspective. Unfortunately, it seems like the same is true of EME proponents, and it's the same issue :(
- duncan_bayne 13y agoEven leaving that issue[1] aside, if the W3C were to endorse EME, then for the first time in its history the Open Web would not be implementable by anyone who chose to do so. That is the real problem here, not incompatibility with any particular software license. [1] which is pretty much the reason for the existence of the FOSS movement, so I'm sure you'll understand the inflexibility there :)
- aidenn0 13y agoWhat do you mean by "Open Web"? AFAICT the term "Open Web Platform" is only 3 years old, and before that "open web" (not capitalized) just meant all the freely implementable standards, which makes your first sentence circular. We've had non-free things in the web since GIFs, and flash is currently used for a lot of the things that EME will be used for. I don't endorse EME on principle, but it is inevitable at this point, whether or not the W3C endorses it.
- duncan_bayne 13y agohttp://www.w3.org/standards/ http://www.w3.org/standards/ W3C standards define an Open Web Platform for application development that has the unprecedented potential to enable developers to build rich interactive experiences, powered by vast data stores, that are available on any device. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.
- zobzu 13y agoTBH I think "free software people" (whatever that means, really..) would have every right to refuse to negotiate and just refuse DRMs. I don't see any pride is finding a middle ground for the sake of saying "look, we're trying to be helpful!" But then, that's just me.
- tzs 13y agoBy that argument, tar can never be a proper open standard, because people can put non-open things in tar files, or would you give tar a pass because open things can also be put in tar archives? EME is similar. CDMs used to implement DRM will probably be non-open, but there is nothing that requires EME only be used for DRM. One obvious non-DRM use is for privacy protection. For instance, once could design a pretty nifty photo sharing system that shares encrypted photos and uses EME to interface to the CDMs that decrypt the photos for display. The EME/CDM mechanism would allow this to be done in a more user-friendly way than the password and account based systems that are usually used for this kind of thing. The CDM necessary for such a photo sharing system could be completely open.