Note that HTML5 in no way required Ogg (as denoted by the word "should" instead of "must" in the earlier draft). Adding this to the fact that there are widely available patent-free implementations of Ogg technology, there is really no excuse for Apple and Nokia to say that they couldn't in good faith implement HTML5 as previously formulated." Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
A bit sensationalist. The modification of the draft still states it intends to use OSS solutions for Audio & Video codecs:
+ <p class="big-issue">It would be helpful for interoperability if all
+ browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known
+ codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is
+ known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is
+ compatible with the open source development model, that is of
+ sufficient quality as to b
+ we need a codec that is + known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is + compatible with the open source development model... (...which is different from BEING open source. Which is different from being Free software...) + that is of + sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional + submarine patent risk for large companies. ( so I guess little companies can get lost) yet when ogg/vorbis-theora already satisfies the requirements, it's slashed. that means it failed the no
I thought (from the Vorbis website [vorbis.com]): The Ogg Vorbis specification is in the public domain. It is completely free for commercial or noncommercial use. That means that commercial developers may independently write Ogg Vorbis software which is compatible with the specification for no charge and without restrictions of any kind. However, the software packages we have developed are available under various free/open-source software licenses with varying allowances and restrictions.
The corporate problem, the reason that they were opposed to OGG as a standard is that it has no provision for tacking on DRM. They don't want a standard that doesn't include optional (well they probably want mandatory) DRM capabilities.
Summary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+ known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is
+ compatible with the open source development model...
(...which is different from BEING open source. Which is different from being Free software...)
+ that is of
+ sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional
+ submarine patent risk for large companies.
( so I guess little companies can get lost)
yet when ogg/vorbis-theora already satisfies the requirements, it's slashed. that means it failed the no
Could someone please explain? (Score:1)
So h0w are Apple and Nokia et.
Re: (Score:2)