The Latest Proposal For Wayland Content Protection Protocol (HDCP)

[aht0]

Yes, you are. In at least Germany and the Netherlands, it's legal. In fact, here in the Netherlands, we even pay an added government tax when buying physical media (I kid you not!) to be allowed to make said copies.

More or less same in Estonia and Finland. Recording devices and blank media have additional levy, regardless of end-use. Finland collected tax straight from private purchasers up to 2015 or so, nowadays State pays it from it's own funds. You are allowed to backup-copy original media for your own use as long as you retain the original.
Sharing these in any form, selling or uploading these copies in file-sharing networks is still illegal as hell. People have gone to prison for it, in recent years.

[Guest]

I definitely don't like such extreme forms of DRM, my data is less protected than movies and TV shows. They're not nuclear launch codes people.

On the other hand, I don't think any of us have to worry about this stuff being present on our GNU/Linux systems, movie and TV show streaming services will never trust software that is controlled by the user. i.e We'll never get HD video playback for Netflix and the like if we're using free software drivers, a replaceable kernel and a free software compositor. It's most likely for some commercial TV software, or maybe ChromeOS.

[WorBlux]

I hope distros will eventually patch this out.

Or provide some way to spoof it.
So it informs whatever queries the API that it is running in a secure context even though it does not.

This isn't for distro's.

This is for chromeOS, and for pushing android towards the wayland stack.

Application that actually use it are going to check the device ID and not blindly trust the API.

[cj.wijtmans]

so this trash makes into wayland but not a protocol for recording screen that actually benefits productive value of wayland for example OBS. ok den.

This isn't for distro's.

This is for chromeOS, and for pushing android towards the wayland stack.

Application that actually use it are going to check the device ID and not blindly trust the API.

that just proves wayland was never meant for the linux desktop.

[aht0]

so this trash makes into wayland but not a protocol for recording screen that actually benefits productive value of wayland for example OBS. ok den.
that just proves wayland was never meant for the linux desktop.

Wayland was not meant to be for the linux exclusively, you are correct.
There were serious financial backers for HDCP more than likely as well...

[ssokolow]

so this trash makes into wayland but not a protocol for recording screen that actually benefits productive value of wayland for example OBS. ok den.

This is easy to get in because introducing it doesn't risk opening an architectural security hole that has to be kept for backwards compatibility.

Screen recording on Wayland as a cross-desktop protocol has to be designed in such a way that a malicious application can't claim to be the screen-recording software you authorized and then do something nasty. That makes the design process much more complicated.

(TL;DR: All the Wayland extensions we're seeing get in are not security-sensitive. HDCP support and server-side window decorations are less dangerous than OpenGL support. On the other hand, screen recording that's not a built-in compositor feature is a special case of "agree on a cross-desktop standard for safely allowing privileged applications that can bypass Wayland's normal efforts to isolate applications from each other." ...which is still something they haven't gotten together and hammered out.)

[cj.wijtmans]

This is easy to get in because introducing it doesn't risk opening an architectural security hole that has to be kept for backwards compatibility.

You are literally insane calling production value "backwards compatibility". This is why linux will never take off.

[ssokolow]

You are literally insane calling production value "backwards compatibility". This is why linux will never take off.

That is so divorced from what I intended it to mean that I have no idea what you mean by it. Please rephrase it.

(When I say "an architectural security hole that has to be kept for backwards compatibility", I'm talking about things like the fact that the X11 SECURITY extension flopped because too many applications break when you enable it... so Wayland is trying to be X11 SECURITY done right and only allow opt-outs in ways that have been very careful considered for potential unintended consequences.)

[cj.wijtmans]

That is so divorced from what I intended it to mean that I have no idea what you mean by it. Please rephrase it.

(When I say "an architectural security hole that has to be kept for backwards compatibility", I'm talking about things like the fact that the X11 SECURITY extension flopped because too many applications break when you enable it... so Wayland is trying to be X11 SECURITY done right and only allow opt-outs in ways that have been very careful considered for potential unintended consequences.)

i never said it has to implement X11 cruft. That is you.

[ssokolow]

i never said it has to implement X11 cruft. That is you.

Again, I'm completely puzzled at how you misinterpreted what I said.

I mentioned X11 SECURITY as an example of a previous attempt to implement Wayland-esque security which failed because too many application developers refused to support it. That failure is what inspired Wayland's "Until we can support things like screen recording securely, don't support them at all" approach to features where applications need to poke at each other... to make sure that we don't wind up with something where the screen recording support is exploitable and nobody is willing to fix it because changing it would break too many applications.