- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:49:29 -0400
- To: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 6/28/2013 5:19 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote: > 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". > > > First, I noted in an email sent only a few minutes ago that in general Wikipedia provides 18 different definition of Open standards [1]. In terms of your question - Open Web - our definitions are not rigorous in terms of defining the phrase "Open Web". The beginning of reference [2] describes the Open Web Platform, but its emphasis is on the description of the platform - not the definition of open. Probably the best way to answer your question is to say that we define Open Web to be the standards-based Web defined by our Open Standardization process. Our definition of Open Standards is more developed than our definition of Open Web. Wikipedia [1] notes our processes for transparency, inclusion, impartiality, and consensus. We clearly support OpenStand [3] and have documented our adherence to those practices in [4]. Beyond that, we have taken a further leadership role in our insistence on Royalty-free terms for patents [5]. It is generally accepted that this places us among the most "open" standards organizations. As noted elsewhere in this thread, recently we have also adopted a practice of making sure that our Recommendations are implementable in open source - although we have not adopted a practice that they be implementable with every open source license. Tim's FAQ from many years ago [6] emphasizes the participation points of openness. Jeff [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard [2] http://www.w3.org/standards/ [3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission [4] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/open-stand-w3c.html [5] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ [6] http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html#standards
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 09:49:22 UTC