- From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:06:20 -0400
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Aaron Franco <aaron at ngrinder.com> wrote: > I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the specification, > but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is supposed to > be "open & free" is counter productive to the advancement of web > technologies. I feel we cannot allow companies like Microsoft and Apple to > take advantage of such patents. Allowing the H.264 to be a part of the spec > without it being royalty free only gives those corporations more control [snip] Ah! Now I understand. H.264 is not under consideration as part of spec, and I don't believe that anyone has ever even tendered a serious proposal that it be considered as part of the specification for exactly the reasons that you've enumerated. It wasn't clear to me that you were unaware of this, I thought you were attempting to propose a way? though, sadly, an unworkable one? in which it could be considered. Cheers!
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 19:06:20 UTC