- From: alex <mail@nabu.be>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:11:10 +0100
> We have to take into accounts the needs of everyone. This includes large > companies. If large companies will only accept codecs that they've already > implemented, then that may have to be one of the criteria. This conflicts with: > Whatever solution we find will be one that is royalty free and open. That > is not in any doubt. You can't have it both ways. > If the text moves to requiring a non-free codec, then you will have been > screwed, and then you should raise almightly hell. However, no such > decision has been made (and no such decision will ever be made, at least > not while I'm involved). Pfew, can we get a signed copy of that? :P > * We could convince the MPEG-LA group to provide a royalty free license > for one of their codecs, e.g. H.264 Baseline. Very unlikely. > * We could wait for Ogg to be used by a large fraction of the Web > population, as that would provide the business reason for companies > like Apple to support Ogg. Without the standard? Highly doubtful. > * We could use an codec old enough that all patents claimed to > be essential to its implementation have expired. Highly useless. Bandwidth & quality are still end user concerns. The way i see it there are 3 possibilities so far: - use ogg, possible (but negligable) risk of submarine patents - use extremely old technology - use another free codec which has a 100% guarantee that there are no patentholders lurking this does not exist (afaik) At the end of the day, I think little choice remains except ogg.
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 00:11:10 UTC