<i>But introducing non-free (as in freedom) part in basic protocols is another story.</i><p>What on earth are you talking about? The issue as it pertains to the spec was decided over six months ago. Here is the post by the editor of the spec saying so: <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html" rel="nofollow">http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun...</a> Neither h.264 or Theora are part of the HTML5 spec. The spec is open. Nobody is trying to force a proprietary format into the spec. For that matter, I don't recall anybody ever trying to get h.264 made part of the spec. &#60;video&#62; was format-agnostic from the start, just like &#60;img&#62;. Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea that anybody was trying to add proprietary extensions to the spec--even Mozilla hasn't claimed that--you really don't seem to be familiar with the subject at all.<p>You also completely missed the point with Dirac. The point is that they are actively blocking their users from using it along with every other format except Theora. Nobody gives a shit about whether Mozilla implements it--they just want to be able to use whatever formats they like without having Mozilla play the role of Daddy--a role that nobody asked them to play and which does not follow naturally from their previously espoused values.<p><i>Mozilla is fighting to keep an open web</i><p>You're doing that thing again where you pretend that everything Mozilla does is automatically the right thing just because they claim it helps freedom. I am saying that that this mistaken, and have cited a very specific thing that they have done and many specific reasons why I think so.<p>All you have done here is repeat your first comment, which was bullshit fanaticism that has more to do with scaring people than it does reality.<p><i>try to keep out patent encumbered formats in core protocols</i><p>Nobody is trying to put h.264 in HTML5. Where did you get that idea?