On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't think the particular parallel you've drawn there is the >> appropriate one. > > And I think you failed to answer the line in my email that asked what the > point of this tangent is. > PK
I split the thread specifically because I agreed with your position that the encumbered codec angst was unrelated the LGPLv2 licensing concerns. I apologize for not saying so directly. Much of my email was presenting a position as to why the concerns related to these formats keep arising within whatwg and why these concerns have practical implications for the standard. Frankly, the legality of Google's software while interest is almost entirely off-topic, though of some interest to implementers. I felt guilty for the two messages I posted on the subject a few days ago. As switch in focus to the codec compatibility issues is a move back on topic, although that horse is already well beaten at this point. Cheers.
