[whatwg] Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements)

Gareth Hay gazhay at gmail.com
Fri Mar 23 05:18:47 PDT 2007

On 23 Mar 2007, at 12:09, Gervase Markham wrote:

> Gareth Hay wrote:
>> As has been said, this isn't a legal list.
> And a list with "-legal" in the name magically acquires lawyers  
> with the relevant expertise who are willing to give free advice?
Hang on a minute, next time why don't you tell me and I'll open my  
mouth so you can insert the words?
>> At best, we can only conclude that this is a very grey area  
>> throughout different regions of the world, and as such, is not  
>> only out with the scope of this list, but possibly of the spec  
>> itself.
> That's a non-sequitur.

Why does it not follow?
There is no definitive answer on the legality of this, the answer  
would come from lawyers, of many different regions, of which this  
list has none, so it is out of scope.

>> Unless legal advice can be sought from all potential markets, I  
>> think we are all arguing in vein and should conclude to distance  
>> ourselves from including this type of thing in  the spec.
> That's the fallacy of unattainable perfection.

Ok, so in risk analysis terminology, it is a risk to seek no legal  
advice on a legal topic, to reduce that risk we should get the input  
of as many different qualified legal persons from as many different  
regions as possible.

Not only is that costly, but is out of scope of this list and spec,  

To be honest, I don't have the time to debate silly points with you,  
this is the 2nd day it has happened.
It was *very* clear from my original message that my view was to  
avoid this issue entirely. You have picked one-liners, and  
deliberately mis-understood the email for the benefit of trying to  
make yourself look clever and me inferior.

I'll help you out, I'm an idiot, you are god.
Move along please.

More information about the whatwg mailing list