W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Open video for an open web

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:10:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4B6A026F.5070401@mit.edu>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 2/3/10 4:40 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> JF wonders aloud if this changes anything...
> http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx

I am not a patent lawyer, so I don't know.  At least from Joe's perspective.

 From Youtube's perspective it probably means they can probably keep 
serving up H.264 without having to pay for said distribution until 2016.

 From Mozilla's perspective it doesn't change the issue of being able to 
ship a browser that other's can redistribute.  Whether it changes the 
issue of people being able to put content on the web is identical to 
whether it changes things for Joe.

Note that 2016 is significantly before all the H.264 patents expire, so 
even if that were accepted as the way to go right now, it would be worth 
putting effort into finding a successor that does not have quite as much 
... uncertainty ... as H.264 (or Theora, in Apple's case).

> And in case you've missed this:
> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/21/45

That seems like a reasonable summary of the current situation, yes.

The future of the On2 codecs is one big question mark here, I think. 
Non-Google browser vendors' willingness to support them, obviously 
contingent on whatever the licensing terms happen to be, etc, is another.

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 23:11:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT