- From: Chris DiBona <cdibona@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:42:47 +0900
I'm perfectly calm, what people need to realize is that this issue is actually not about submarined patents (more like aircraft carrier patents) or tricky corner cases for the lgpl., but that the internet users prefer more quality in their codecs/megabyte/second. So long as this is true this issue will not be resolvable cleanly and the kind of puritism that Robert mentioned is achievable only upon expiration of said patents or dramatic quality improvements of the free codecs. You can claim Humians as much as you like, the rest of us are trying to ship software here. Chris On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp<nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote: > Am Montag, den 08.06.2009, 09:24 +0900 schrieb Chris DiBona: >> > The incredibly sucky outcome is that Chrome ships patent-encumbered >> > "open web" features, just like Apple. That is reprehensible. >> >> Reprehensible? Mozilla (and all the rest) supports those same "open >> web" features through its plugin architecture. Why don't you make a >> stand and shut down compatibility with plugins from flash, quicktime >> and others? How long would Firefox last in the market if it were >> incompatible with those? Honestly. > > Please, stay calm. Flash is also evil[tm] (read: detrimental to > accessibility and compatibility) too and I think you know that. > > Also, the status quo (various proprietary plugins) says nothing about > how something should be (accessible, interoperable standards); this is > called the is-ought-problem, please read up on it. > > Cheers, > -- > Nils Dagsson Moskopp > <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net> > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 17:42:47 UTC