Re: What is the "open web" ?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:

> Mark Watson:
>> I think we all agree that W3C recommendations must be implementable,
>> royalty-free, in open source software.
>
> +1
>
>> Some would extend this to "Free Open Source Software".
>
> I am not sure how this is meant. The choice of Open Source licenses used
> by an Open Source implementation should not be restricted by a W3C
> recommendation directly or indirectly.

Sure. I meant that some people would like the W3C policy to refer to
Free Open Source rather than just Open Source.
Z
>
>> It's also been said that "open web" refers to an ambition that the
>> entire software stack on which the web platform rests be
>> implementable in FOSS software. That is, not just that W3C
>> specifications should be implementable
>> in FOSS, but that the underlying capabilities the web platform
>> exposes should meet the same requirement.
>
> +1
>
>> Examples include Geolocation and WebGL. Whilst it is possible to
>> implement both of these in open source software, you basically
>> need proprietary > hardware (and the proprietary software drivers
>> to go with it) to offer a performant capability to applications
>> (GPS and a graphics card, respectively).
>
> I do not agree. Neither Geolocation nor WebGL "basically" require closed
> source drivers.

I believe they require proprietary hardware/firmware to be performant,
though I could be wrong there. Or this could be true now but will
change in future (certainly it will change when the various patents
involved expire).

>
>> You could also include some video codecs, though here the
>> issue is just the royalty-free part rather than the open source part.
>
> The HTML5 video tag is usable with WebM/VP8.
>
> It is a problem that H.264 is patent encumbered and I am convinced that
> one reason why some closed source web browsers belonging to proprietary
> operating systems implement only the second format and not the first one
> is exactly this.
>
>> At the other end, if there was only a single
>> example of a platform which did not support a given capability,
>> would that be ok ?
>
> It would a problem if it is impossible to implement that capability
> using an Open Source license chosen by the implementer.
>
> These documents might be relevant for this discussion:
>
> Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html
>
> Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" to be released with completely free Linux Kernel
> December 15th, 2010
> http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20101215.en.html
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas

Received on Sunday, 2 June 2013 19:19:41 UTC