On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 08:01:07AM -0700, James Phillips wrote: > > I have this fantasy that if I design and build a better streaming video > format, "They" (broadcasters) will use it, if properly marketed.
It may be a fantasy, but as fantasies go, it's not a bad one. > > This would be despite the lack of "strong" DRM or license terms (GPL v3 > is OK, right?). No, it isn't okay, really. > 4. Publishers are authenticated with a Public-key infrastructure That caught my attention. I don't think we necessarily need a mainstream style implementation of PKI, though. I'd say either go with simple public key digital signatures in the style of OpenPGP or take cues from the Perspectives plugin for Firefox and do distributed "web of trust" style verification. Certifying Authorities are basically just a social engineering trick; now, instead of trusting one party, you have to trust two. > > 2. For interoperability, I need to stabilize key points of the spec > before publication. Currently struggling with date stamps (taking into > account leap seconds) (mostly resolved), and a transform to allow the > publisher to be authenticated even if some data is missing. There are copyfree licensed implementations of date management that take leap seconds into account out there already. Is there some reason you can't borrow liberally from them? > 4. A dual-license may quickly result in a fork that implements > "features" I really don't want to see. (Read: anything deliberately > incompatible.) That's just another reason to go with a copyfree license instead of the GPL. > > 5. I seem to be pre-occupied with the video compression, ignoring > sound. > > PS: was this too off-topic? Maybe? I don't know. It's an interesting topic. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpkPa6DcPRUI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
