[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

[Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)]

El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió:
> I'm sure that many people would be happy to see a mandate if someone
> were willing to offer an indemnity against risk here.  You seem quite
> convinced there is no risk;  are you willing to offer the indemnity?

No.  Unlike Apple, I don't have a huge patent portfolio.  My patent count 
reaches the awesome number of *zero*.  Would you be willing to offer patent 
indemnity to unlicensed users of your Apple AAC audio format?  Because I fail 
to see why leaving users without a free choice for audio *helps* things.  I 
dunno, maybe I'm just dumb as a rock.

>
> Large companies (Nokia, Microsoft, and Apple) have expressed anxiety,
> and are asking (among other things) that an independent analysis be
> done.  The W3C staff are, I believe, actively working on the issue.
> I'm sure that they would be pleased to consider whatever background
> material you can offer them.
>
> I fail to see how asking for an analysis of the problem is giving
> anyone "the shaft", since no decision has yet been even offered let
> alone reached.

The fact that no decision has been finalized is somewhat relieving, because it 
means we can still revert to the pro-free stance.

>
> Did you read the piece that I edited from the discussions at the HTML
> meeting?

No.  I just recently enlisted here.
-- 

	Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com>
	Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
	GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20071211/6d9d2114/attachment-0001.pgp>