- From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 28 Jun 2013 11:14:40 +0200
- To: "Olivier Thereaux" <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Olivier Thereaux: > 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. ... > 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. It is not an either or. And DRM is not "open" in any of the two stated interpretations of "open". Cheers, Andreas
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 11:07:29 UTC