- From: Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:09:57 -0600
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>,piranna@gmail.com
- CC: 'Andreas Kuckartz' <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>,public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Patented codec, not copyrighted. You've dodged the question. John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: >>Matt Ivie wrote: >>> >>> What else can EME do? >>> >> >>What else can x264 do besides convert videos to a licensed codec? >> >>JF >> >> >>> John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: >>> >>> >>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 >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from my Replicant phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my >>brevity. >>> Visit replicant.us -- Sent from my Replicant phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Visit replicant.us
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 03:10:42 UTC