Re: This is a sad day for interoperability in the Web
Robert Buchholz <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:21:35 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.multimedia.ogg.vorbis.general,gmane.comp.multimedia.ogg.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wednesday, 22. August 2007, Chris Harrington (Personal) wrote: > I think what Diego is saying is that they aren't a magical "black > box" that nobody can implement. That is what "proprietary" typically > implies. > > However, the exact definition [ http://www.answers.com/proprietary ] > says that something proprietary is, basically, anything that is owned > or controlled by a single entity. Since one must pay a license fee to > implement these standards, that would imply that they are > proprietary. The definition does not apply here, the terms are orthogonal. One standard can be either open or proprietary, and it can contain patented technologies or not. But its authors can choose for each of those options. Robert _______________________________________________ Vorbis mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGzH6wyZx3L/ph1soRAiTlAKCOzZ5Ug7S+oKTdG3yhHTzX2c1hKACgt/JK /aI1/MuTK1Rv7MKt6CyhH3s= =GS0e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----