[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

[Krzysztof Żelechowski]

Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 00:21 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
> Look, guys.  I don't think I've explained myself well, partly because I've 
> come on too strong.  There is no evidence of malice.  There's also no 
> evidence of profiteering.  There *is* evidence of immorality, if you define 
> spreading falsehoods as immoral (see "Ogg is proprietary" comment).  The rest 
> of the discussion is basically a disagreement on how risky it would be to 
> implement Ogg on browsers.  Some of us don't feel it's risky, others feel 
> it's too risky to even consider (I understand -- billions of dollars may be 
> at stake).

And both threads are pointless and irrelevant.