- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:19:01 +0300
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 08:46 +0000, Olivier Thereaux wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On 28 Jun 2013, at 06:38, "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: > > We are talking about the "Open Web Platform" aren't we? "Standards" > > which can not be implemented using an Open Source license chosen by the > > implementer are not part of that. > > > To some extend it is funny to watch closed source proponents attempting > > to (re-)define "Open" in a way which is incompatible with Open Source. > > This is a very interesting statement. Even having worked in the field of open standards for a very long time, I don't think I could be so confident. And I might even suggest there might be a bit of a kettle/pot situation here. > > Our problem is *precisely* that there has been a lot of ambiguity about what the "open web platform" is (other than a good - and recent - brand for the W3C to talk about most of its specs). Is it a platform built with open standards (open as in "developed in the open") or is it a standard platform compatible with the FLOSS ethos (open as in "open source")? > > The answer is... Yes, it's one or the other. Or maybe something in between. As the discussion so far shows, there is not a single authoritative nor universally agreed upon definition - only the course of history may decide… > > Meanwhile, some people on both sides are claiming that "obviously it is [your preference here]" and accusing the other side of being disingenuous. Not sure that's really helping. Since part of the discussion is whether or not EME is part of W3C's mission, I'd like to hear how W3C defines the "Open Web".
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 09:19:30 UTC