W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Open video for an open web

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:22:04 -0800
Message-ID: <B61D3004995E4B1B89EC8D11275F607F@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>


>> JF wonders aloud if this changes anything...
>> http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx
>
> I am not a patent lawyer, so I don't know.  At least from Joe's 
> perspective.

My perspective is sticking with free and open implementations. 
web3d.org and w3.org both promote and finally specify a path free of 
any restrictive IP. I think the main reason we have anything web is 
that by some magic the basics that make the standards possible are 
somehow unencumbered. Amazing how video and audio fields are so 
regulated with royalties due at every level of use. It is in the 
community interest to promote an open path.

You ask about how the spec would change anything? How did offering 
<img> affect evolution of the WWW. Yes, a bit different because so 
many 'free' alternatives were able to arise over a relatively short 
period of time. In audio  and video the patents seem to cover such 
comprehensive ranges of technolgies (making mpgla possible) that I do 
not think we will see many, if any, other 'free' implementations that 
offer a compelling alternative. Just that the standard first and only 
should specifly a toll-free path. The community standards should 
expose that free and open path if it is an appropriate technical 
solution.

If the standard said all browsers should support a format and only 
Safari of the great mobile and laptop and desktop and web developer 
browsers did not, then I would judge upon how you did fallback. If 
Safari just did not play the thing and gave a decent message for 
failure, then I would say OK. In your mind, your choice; (i hope) 
history will show you actively fought the tide and the tide finally 
won. If fallback led to a 'house' player, then I would think it a 
familar gbw tactic,

>
> From Youtube's perspective it probably means they can probably keep 
> serving up H.264 without having to pay for said distribution until 
> 2016.

That is a small part of a relatively short-term plan.
YouTube in 2016?
You_are_the_tube_
Directly connected at all 72 critical nerve points,
wideband analog. No compression/decompression/pre/post/meta processing 
required, but of course special augmentations available for subscribed 
users.

>> And in case you've missed this:
>> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/21/45
>
> That seems like a reasonable summary of the current situation, yes.

I agree. Always look for the unencumbered lable on your tools.

> The future of the On2 codecs is one big question mark here, I think. 
> Non-Google browser vendors' willingness to support them, obviously 
> contingent on whatever the licensing terms happen to be, etc, is 
> another.

That is a blocking distraction, I think. When specifics are known a 
decision can be made. However, the cat is out of the bag. Whatever is 
out there is available for life. It works now and it is free and 
current implementations and those advanced via "BSD-style" can not be 
turned off. It is unique in the field. It is a path for free use and 
all HTML5 web browsers worthy of the name should jump at this 
opportunity to move the community ahead.

A form of this may move ahead and get a different name with 
proprietary features but that would need a different name and what is 
there now cannot be withdrawn. That sort of talk also stirkes me as 
possibly too high ideals and belief in truth and honor, but given 
current history, current uptake, and the slightest bit of justice, can 
the idea of 'submarine' patents causing problems for this be taken 
seriously?

Thanks Again and Best Regards,
Joe


> -Boris
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 04:22:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC