- From: Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:32:34 -0600
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>,piranna@gmail.com
- CC: 'Andreas Kuckartz' <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>,public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Being Free Software and being covered by a patent are two different things. By confusing the two matters you're making more downstream confusion as a result. We should think of copyright issues and patent issues as they are: two separate issues. John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: >>piranna@gmail.com wrote >>> >>> >> 1. Open Source implementations of H.264 are available. >>> > >>> > Source? Please document this assertion. >>> > >>> http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html >>> >> >>X264 is an encoder that outputs videos using the h.264 codec which >>*is* >>patent encumbered (MPEG LA) - and thus not "Open Source" as others are >>defining it. Yes, the encoder might be GPLv2 (*), but the codec itself >>(which is also a standard BTW) is *NOT* Open Source. >> >>In the summer of 2010, MPEG LA announced that no royalties will be >>charged >>on freely available Internet Video which uses the H.264 codec for the >>duration of MPEG LA's license to the patent. Video that is pay-to-view >>either on a per item or a subscription basis however will still >>require a >>license fee: >>"Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video >>continue to >>be royalty-bearing." >>(http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en) >> >>Once again, we have a mix of Open and closed source technologies >>working >>"together" on the Open Web Platform. >> >> >>JF >> >>(* and not GPLv3 - http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html) -- Sent from my Replicant phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Visit replicant.us
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 23:33:19 UTC