In a recent article on Slashdot, Zonk posts a submission from “a nona maus,” that states Nokia called Ogg proprietary and is an inferior format because it lacks DRM. I just had to read Nokia’s 4 page letter (PDF) to the W3C that Slashdot was referencing because frankly I couldn’t believe my ears. The incriminating sentence by Stephan Wenger is on page 3 and says:
“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.”
When taken out of context yes it appears that Stephan is calling Ogg proprietary, but if one took 5 minutes to read the letter in its entirety, to add some proper context, then I hope you would agree with me that the man is just stating he doesn’t want the W3C to choose a singular format that will rule the future of online video, but instead let the free market decide. He also states Nokia prefers h.264 for video and AAC for audio, these 2 formats are also compatible with DRM which currently is needed to get the major content providers out there to supply their intellectual property.
Don’t believe me? Read it yourself. He could have chosen a better word than proprietary or could have listed another codec like WMV, but the cock fight between the people behind the open source movement and the rest of the world is one that will never stop.
Update: OGG isn’t a codec, it is a container, and I’m already getting hate mail from my freetard friends.
Update: Cory Doctorow is saying Nokia is calling Ogg DRM and presents a very valid argument. At the end of the day I would like Mr. Wenger to clarify what he meant, because too many people are getting their panties in a bunch over what I think is a typo or poorly constructed sentence.