[whatwg] Video codec requirements changed
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
rudd-o at rudd-o.com
Tue Dec 11 15:53:36 PST 2007
> The text you replaced the requirements with  includes the
> requirement that the codec:
> # is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies
> Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a
> loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the
> choice of codec for any reason it chooses, potentially including not
> wanting the <video> element to succeed in creating an open standard
> for video on the Web?
There is no objective measurement possible for that requirement, except the
lone yes/no of something being unpatented and really old. We can't make
videos play on Web pages using forks, hammers and chairs. And even under
those circumstances, patent trolls do get stuff that shouldn't be patentable
patented, so living in fear of patent trolls is absurd.
Wanna know what happened to the last troll that attacked free software? Ask
Darl McBride. Everyone is under the possibility of constant attack from
But, anyway, we've already established that the fear of patents is just an
excuse to take Ogg out. Other sensible reasons remain to prefer other
technologies, and the standard as it was written before did cater to those
technologies as well.
>  In full, the text is:
> # 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 be usable, and that is not an additional
> # submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing
> # issue and this section will be updated once more information is
> # available.
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/
Hope that the day after you die is a nice day.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the whatwg