Can WebM already be called an open standard?

[micu]

Hi everybody,

The FSF applauds Google for its decision to remove H.264 from its
browsers and its push for WebM; and the FSF supports WebM:

http://www.fsf.org/news/supporting-webm
http://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-webm-and-
vp8

But when it comes to our definition of open standards ---
http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html: what do you think, can WebM
already be called an open standard?

AFAIK, recently FFmpeg released a from-scratch WebM reimplementation,
which lets criterion 5 (available in multiple complete implementations
by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available
to all parties.) at least begin to hold.

But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed
independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal
participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to
be true?

Kind regards
micu

[Timo Juhani Lindfors]

Post by micu
But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed
independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal
participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to
be true?

Before we start to evaluate new formats I think we should first go
through existing and well known formats to get some sort of
baseline. Is PDF an open standard? What about ZIP? etc.

[Hugo Roy]

Hi micu,

Post by micu
Hi everybody,
The FSF applauds Google for its decision to remove H.264 from its
http://www.fsf.org/news/supporting-webm
http://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-webm-and-
vp8
But when it comes to our definition of open standards ---
http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html: what do you think, can WebM
already be called an open standard?

Now, clearly not. It is true that WebM is managed by a single commercial
entity, Google. However, we can be confident. Google has already shown
some good signs in the direction of independence of the project.

Moreover, what's important is the HTML5 open standard after all :)


As for WebM itself, it's a free software technology, with an open (and
royalty-free licensed) specification and adoption is growing. So, it's
an emerging Open Standard :)

For PDF, yes, it is an open standard: see for instance
http://pdfreaders.org

Best regards,
Hugo

[Timo Juhani Lindfors]

Post by Hugo Roy
For PDF, yes, it is an open standard: see for instance
http://pdfreaders.org

That lists multiple incomplete implementations of PDF. Point
http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html of requires multiple complete
ones and has many more points. Mostly I'm interested in getting
information on how PDF passes point 4.

[Hugo Roy]

Post by Timo Juhani Lindfors

Post by Hugo Roy
For PDF, yes, it is an open standard: see for instance
http://pdfreaders.org

That lists multiple incomplete implementations of PDF. Point
http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html of requires multiple complete
ones and has many more points. Mostly I'm interested in getting
information on how PDF passes point 4.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The explanation is on http://pdfreaders.org
Mainly for point 4, PDF is managed by ISO. All the information is on the
website.

Best,

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Post by micu
AFAIK, recently FFmpeg released a from-scratch WebM reimplementation,
which lets criterion 5 (available in multiple complete implementations
by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available
to all parties.) at least begin to hold.
But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed
independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal
participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to
be true?

I think I don't understand what criterion 4 is meant to address nor do I
see how an unencumbered from-scratch implementation would not qualify as
satisfying criterion 4.

FFmpeg developers made a from-scratch free software implementation, so
wouldn't that demonstrate anyone can "manage and further develop
independently of" Google "in an open process equal to the participation
of competitors and third parties"? Didn't FFmpeg developers just do that?

[Florian Weimer]

Post by J.B. Nicholson-Owens

Post by micu
But what would you say: Can criterion 4 (managed and further developed
independently of any single vendor in aw process open to the equal
participation of competitors and third parties) already be identified to
be true?

I think I don't understand what criterion 4 is meant to address nor do I
see how an unencumbered from-scratch implementation would not qualify as
satisfying criterion 4.

Another implementation does not change and improve the standard.
The standard remains unchanged.

IMHP, the whole concept is probably quite pointless. After all, C# is
an open standard, but Emacs Lisp is not. And neither are TeX nor
LaTeX. To me, it doesn't seem to be a useful category to think in.