Apples actual response to the Flash issue

[Richmond Mathewson]

  On 01/05/2010 19:24, Ian Wood wrote:
>
> On 1 May 2010, at 08:55, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
>
>> HTML5 is not open.  Its a different flavor of proprietary, by the 
>> way.  H264
>> is proprietary.
>
> H264 is proprietary, but h264 is NOT part of HTML5. HTML5 just 
> specifies a video tag without specifying the type of video.
>
> HTML5 is no more proprietary than previous versions of HTML.
>

Maybe I'm being a bit stupid, but it does seem as if the word 'open' as 
used in
phrases such as 'open source' and 'open standards' is a bit hard to pin 
down;
what is one person's open-ness seems to be a bit closed to another person
and vice-versa.

Also; for the sake of argument: I offered to Ubuntu, a few years back, Linux
builds of a couple of Phonetics programs I had cobbled together (and at that
time my level of skill was such that they were literally 'cobbled') with 
RunRev 2.0.1.
Ubuntu refused them on the basis that I had made them using non-open source
code (which annoyed me). Now how far back does one push things? Is there 
such
a thing as really 'open' code?