Re: [Xiph-Advocacy] Response to Nokia position paper

On 07/12/2007, Conrad Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ralph pointed out the bizarrely misinformed position paper that Nokia
> has prepared for the upcoming W3 Video on the Web Workshop:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf
>
> In particular, it recommends against Ogg Theora, calling it "proprietary":
>
> | Anything beyond that, including a W3C-lead standardization
> | of a "free" codec, or the active endorsement of proprietary
> | technology such as Ogg, ..., by W3C, is, in our opinion,
> | not helpful for the co-existence of the two ecosystems (web
> | and video), and therefore not our choice."
> ...
> | All these alternatives are, in our opinion, preferable over
> | the recommendation of the Ogg technologies, based almost
> | exclusively on the current perception of them being free.
>

I notice the publication date is NOT 1st April.  Which is
surprising given proceeding sections like:
"Therefore, Nokia has, in the past, supported initiatives in
committees such as MPEG towards royalty-free standards
(which unfortunately were not fully successful). We are
actively considering making more such attempts."

So they would like to use royalty-free standards, but claim
without justification that those that exist are not actually
free?  And coincidentally, royalty free is /not/ one of their
"Possible Requirements for codecs for video over the Web",
which just happens to prevent open source use.  One
wonders how much clout W3C would have these days if
not for the existence of Mozilla/Firefox.

> Beyond simply correcting the licensing information,
This surely cannot be an accident; the second section you
quote makes it clear that they understand the Xiph
technologies are open. The question is what does Nokia
have against Ogg?  They have not made technical
objections.

-- 
imalone