Hi everybody,
The FSF applauds Google for its decision to remove H.264 from its browsers and its push for WebM; and the FSF supports WebM:
http://www.fsf.org/news/supporting-webm http://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-webm-and- vp8
But when it comes to our definition of open standards --- http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html: what do you think, can WebM already be called an open standard?
AFAIK, recently FFmpeg released a from-scratch WebM reimplementation, which lets criterion 5 (available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.) at least begin to hold.
But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to be true?
Kind regards micu
micu micuintus@gmx.de writes:
But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to be true?
Before we start to evaluate new formats I think we should first go through existing and well known formats to get some sort of baseline. Is PDF an open standard? What about ZIP? etc.
Hi micu,
Le samedi 22 janvier 2011 à 02:05 +0100, micu a écrit :
Hi everybody,
The FSF applauds Google for its decision to remove H.264 from its browsers and its push for WebM; and the FSF supports WebM:
http://www.fsf.org/news/supporting-webm http://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-webm-and- vp8
But when it comes to our definition of open standards --- http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html: what do you think, can WebM already be called an open standard?
Now, clearly not. It is true that WebM is managed by a single commercial entity, Google. However, we can be confident. Google has already shown some good signs in the direction of independence of the project.
Moreover, what's important is the HTML5 open standard after all :)
As for WebM itself, it's a free software technology, with an open (and royalty-free licensed) specification and adoption is growing. So, it's an emerging Open Standard :)
For PDF, yes, it is an open standard: see for instance http://pdfreaders.org
Best regards, Hugo
Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org writes:
For PDF, yes, it is an open standard: see for instance http://pdfreaders.org
That lists multiple incomplete implementations of PDF. Point http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html of requires multiple complete ones and has many more points. Mostly I'm interested in getting information on how PDF passes point 4.
Le samedi 22 janvier 2011 à 20:44 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors a écrit :
Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org writes:
For PDF, yes, it is an open standard: see for instance http://pdfreaders.org
That lists multiple incomplete implementations of PDF. Point http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html of requires multiple complete ones and has many more points. Mostly I'm interested in getting information on how PDF passes point 4.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The explanation is on http://pdfreaders.org Mainly for point 4, PDF is managed by ISO. All the information is on the website.
Best,
micu wrote:
AFAIK, recently FFmpeg released a from-scratch WebM reimplementation, which lets criterion 5 (available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.) at least begin to hold.
But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to be true?
I think I don't understand what criterion 4 is meant to address nor do I see how an unencumbered from-scratch implementation would not qualify as satisfying criterion 4.
FFmpeg developers made a from-scratch free software implementation, so wouldn't that demonstrate anyone can "manage and further develop independently of" Google "in an open process equal to the participation of competitors and third parties"? Didn't FFmpeg developers just do that?
* J. B. Nicholson-Owens:
micu wrote:
But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to be true?
I think I don't understand what criterion 4 is meant to address nor do I see how an unencumbered from-scratch implementation would not qualify as satisfying criterion 4.
Another implementation does not change and improve the standard. The standard remains unchanged.
IMHP, the whole concept is probably quite pointless. After all, C# is an open standard, but Emacs Lisp is not. And neither are TeX nor LaTeX. To me, it doesn't seem to be a useful category to think in.