[Advocacy] Re: [Vorbis] This is a sad day for interoperability in the Web

[Robert Buchholz]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/attachments/20070822/c8f0c55d/attachment.pgp