This is confusing. The paper from Nokia states, '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'
Whereas the Vorbis sya that 'Ogg Vorbis is a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source.'
Nokia is not it elf claiming ownership? Is it an obvious mistake or something else? Will some clarify as to what is correct?
If you have given required notice to your employer then the employer can sue you only for not disclosing trade secrets or undisclosed information if you have acquired any during your employment.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, three laws of Robotics framed by Isaac Asimov should be inbuilt any such system.
Use any Open source license that you like. You only give liberty to modify your software and any other software.
This is strange: statutes can not be copyrighted; however text elaborating explaining might be.
This is confusing. The paper from Nokia states, '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'
Whereas the Vorbis sya that 'Ogg Vorbis is a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source.'
Nokia is not it elf claiming ownership? Is it an obvious mistake or something else? Will some clarify as to what is correct?
If you have given required notice to your employer then the employer can sue you only for not disclosing trade secrets or undisclosed information if you have acquired any during your employment.