- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:29:21 -0700
- To: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: > Mark Watson: >> Sure. I meant that some people would like the W3C policy to refer to >> Free Open Source rather than just Open Source. > > The term "Free and Open Source Software" (FOSS) could or should be used > instead of Open Source. But that would not result in any practical > difference because all Free / Copyleft licenses are also Open Source > licenses. The converse is not true, though (IIUC). > > More precise would be referring to the Open Source Definition > (http://opensource.org/docs/osd) and the list of OSI-approved licenses > (http://opensource.org/licenses). I understood that not all those licenses would qualify as 'FOSS'. Am I using the term FOSS incorrectly ? > >>> 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). > > Well, some manufacturers of 3D graphics hardware certainly make it very > difficult for Open Source developers, which resulted in this well known > reaction by Linus Torvalds last year: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ > > But those difficulties are not inherent in 3D. > > (One main problem here in my opinion is that there are Linux > distributions which promote and encourage the installation of closed > source drivers for certain graphics hardware and by doing so encourage > the hardware manufacturers to continue their bad practices.) > > *** > > Maybe someone reading this mail is interested in this: > > 15-Way Open vs. Closed Source NVIDIA/AMD Linux GPU Comparison > Published on April 29, 2013 > Written by Michael Larabel > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_nvidia_15way&num=1 > > AMD Releases Open-Source UVD Video Support > Published on April 02, 2013 > Written by Fatima Sheremetyeva > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_opensource_uvd&num=1 Nevertheless, the hardware itself and the firmware running I it are proprietary. I am trying to understand where people draw the line I terms of functionality that is ok to expose on the open web. It seems in the case of graphics hardware, if the hardware is widely available off-the-shelf and can be made using open source drivers to work on multiple platforms and support a standard API (in this case OpenGL), then this is ok. But maybe I'm wrong there ? ...Mark > > Cheers, > Andreas
Received on Sunday, 2 June 2013 23:29:54 UTC