W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: proposed audio/video codec text

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:05:57 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <4476E393-CD7B-41CD-A897-13BBC665204A@apple.com>
To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>

On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:

> On 7/8/09 4:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 6:35 AM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/7/09 9:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> And likewise, I think it is important to give the issue due  
>>>> consideration.
>>>
>>> I agree, though I think we need to be careful about claims that we  
>>> must prove a negative. Not that you're suggesting that.
>>
>> Indeed, I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. I pointed out  
>> that the known licenses for patent claims on Theora do not satisfy  
>> the W3C Patent Policy. To address this would only require proving a  
>> positive, for example, by showing a suitable license.
>>
>> I believe this new information refutes your original rationale.
>
> No offense, but I'm afraid I can't take your word for it on that.*

Here are the patent licenses available for On2's patents on VP3 (the  
latter I think is not really a license but rather a non-assertion  
promise):

http://svn.xiph.org/branches/vp32/vp32/VP32_license.txt
https://svn.xiph.org/trunk/theora/LICENSE

You can study them make your own evaluation. Even if you don't think  
this is an unambiguous refutation of your claim, I still think it is  
misleading to state as a fact that Theora fulfills the W3C Patent  
Policy. If you think you don't have the expertise to make the  
evaluation, then all the more reason you shouldn't make definitive  
statements about Theora's status under the Patent Policy.


> I would be happy to make changes based on the results of a PAG or   
> legal advice.  For now, no member has stepped forward with a claim.

I note once again that a Member making a claim is not required to  
invoke the patent policy, merely disclosure (whether by the patent  
holder of a third party) of patents that may include Essential Claims  
on an actual or proposed draft. Members are also obligated to disclose  
third-party patent claims they know may be Essential, unless precluded  
by contractual obligation.

Since you're proposing that your language should eventually go in a  
Working Draft, consider this the disclosure.


> For now, I think it would be best to let the W3C process handle the  
> IPR, rather than ad-hoc traffic on the technically-focused WG.


The only justification given in this WG for requiring Theora is its  
IPR status. Would you like to focus on technical arguments for or  
against Theora instead?


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 21:06:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC