- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:39:58 -0700
- To: "'Matt Ivie'" <matt.ivie@gmail.com>, <piranna@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Andreas Kuckartz'" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
Matt Ivie wrote: > > 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. I can meet you there when you meet me at EME is not DRM :-) (Both are examples of separate issues that have significant linkages, and related downstream confusion...) Besides, we're talking about "Open" standards here, and bringing forth x264 without acknowledging the fact that the software still uses technology that is not "open" is, I believe relevant, if for no other reason than an illustration of how "Open" software can still use non-open standards/technologies (unless you are going to tell me that you can freely modify the H.264 codec at will, with no repercussions). JF
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 02:40:39 UTC