- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:03:15 -0700
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote: > I > wrote about the practice of shipping encumbered software and calling > it "open". Where is the language where Google is calling H.264 "open"? The closest I know of is "Google Chrome is made possible by the Chromium open source project and other open source software" (from Tools->About Google Chrome), which links to a page containing links to the FFMPEG homepage and license. I don't see that as saying what it sounds like you claim something somewhere is saying? In the end I personally view hostility towards patent-encumbered video formats the same way I view hostility toward non-GPL "free software" licenses: a stance I understand, but not one I agree with. More importantly for this thread in particular, I'm not sure what the purpose of stating that opposition here is. I thought the purpose of this thread was to resolve questions people had about the use of FFMPEG vis-a-vis its license. This is probably going to be an ineffective forum if your hope is to dissuade Google from shipping H.264 support. PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090607/e0d8f2aa/attachment.htm>
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 19:03:15 UTC