[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

Charles McCathieNevile chaals at opera.com
Tue Dec 11 09:13:32 PST 2007

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon  
<foolistbar at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote:
>> The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big players  
>> don't want to take the perceived risk (their decision) they'd still be  
>> 100% within the spec. Thus I fail to see why there was need for action.
> There's a question within the W3C Process whether patents that are  
> covered by a SHOULD via a reference are granted a RF license similarly  
> to anything that MUST be implemented. Both Nokia and MS raised concerns  
> about this relating to publishing the spec as a FPWD.

And these concerns are total rubbish (as pointed out by Apple and others):

8.1. Essential Claims

"Essential Claims" shall mean all claims in any patent or patent  
application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be  
infringed by implementation of the Recommendation. A claim is necessarily  
infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it  
because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the  
normative portions of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing  
alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the  
specification becomes a Recommendation.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential

In other words, the patent policy makes it clear that to be covered,  
something must be required in order to implement. A SHOULD-level  
requirement is clearly not required.

So any such concern about the wording that was in the spec is more FUD  
than fact.



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

More information about the whatwg mailing list