Robert J Crisler wrote:
From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 3.12.7.1 <http://3.12.7.1> would result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with these technological areas.
Your plan would, at least, prevent the "standard" codec being supported on Free operating systems. Meeting 3.12.7.1 as it stands would not prevent this. Therefore, it would be a superior situation.
Who wins and who loses? Web and new media developers win by having a streamlined workflow and one expectation for video and audio standards support in browsers. Users win by not having to worry about whether or not they have the right plug-in for Site A or Site B.
Well, the users who can get a licence win. Other users lose.
The issue of a small licensing fee didn't stop MPEG 1 Part 3 from becoming the ubiquitous world standard for audio. It isn't going to stop MPEG-4 AAC from supplanting it, and it hasn't stopped MPEG-2 and AVC from being the standard for HD codecs. Insisting on purity in these matters while the world moves on strikes me as just a bit quixotic.
It's as much a question of practicality as purity. How do you track and collect per-copy royalties for an OS which can be mirrored and redistributed by anyone?
Gerv
