| |||||||||||||
Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the webBlizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the webPosted Jan 25, 2010 19:42 UTC (Mon) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375)In reply to: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web by nhippi Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
Remember, Is it more important to eliminate flash or H.264? While Flash is more annoying because of bugs etc, it is in principle the lesser evil, since (I believe) it can be legally re-implemented in Free Software. H.264 cannot, in many parts of the world.
(Log in to post comments)
how implementable Flash is Posted Jan 25, 2010 21:12 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I'd've thought that implementing Flash would raise lots of patent problems, but this doesn't seem to have happened. When I heard Rob Savoye of Gnash complaining about software patents last February, he was complaining about codec patents. I can't find any info online right now, but I seem to remember him saying the the main legal difficulty with implementing Flash is that he can't hire any programmers in the USA because there's a draconian clause in Adobe's licence that's enforceable in the USA and nowhere else. Something about "if you use this software, you agree not to use the gained knowledge for the purpose of writing a competing program". Not sure where you'd find the details... anyone know what I'm talking about?
how implementable Flash is Posted Jan 25, 2010 21:50 UTC (Mon) by MarkVandenBorre (subscriber, #26071) [Link]
I've talked to Rob in the past and heard him say exactly the same. I seem to vaguely remember him writing that this situation has changed somewhat for the better though. But don't quote me on that.
how implementable Flash is Posted Jan 26, 2010 2:20 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link] Something about "if you use this software, you agree not to use the gained knowledge for the purpose of writing a competing program"It it is somewhat questionable whether a term like that in a retail end user license agreement would in fact be enforceable, especially if the user of the software was not the person who installed it. Courts in the United States have decided both ways. If the EFF wanted to do something useful, they would find people with standing to challenge the extremely dubious arguments behind retail shrinkwrap licenses and push the counterargument based on traditional legal reasoning and copyright law until the disingenuousness of the idea that consumers do not own "copies" of software they buy of the shelf (and the consequent nullity of most end user SLAs) is obvious to every judge in the country.
how implementable Flash is Posted Jan 26, 2010 13:31 UTC (Tue) by dannyobrien (subscriber, #25583) [Link] If the EFF wanted to do something useful, they would find people with standing to challenge the extremely dubious arguments behind retail shrinkwrap licenses and push the counterargument based on traditional legal reasoningIt's funny you should say that... actually EFF is heavily involved in this fight (it was counsel on two of the three cases listed on the page you linked to), and I do believe we're expecting to work on a number of key cases in this area in the next year. We generally describe this as the fight over first sale (partly because the fight also includes patent issues as well as shrinkwrap licenses), but it's the same counterargument.
Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and wihy we're standing with the web Posted Feb 2, 2010 9:37 UTC (Tue) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link] While Flash is more annoying because of bugs etc, it is in principle the lesser evil, since (I believe) it can be legally re-implemented in Free Software. H.264 cannot, in many parts of the world. I think it's still the case though that codecs you send over flash are still patentable (and largely patented). Which is why the gnash devs get so annoyed that people get annoyed when it doesn't work with youtube, because they won't distribute the codecs themselves, so have to hope that the distributions will (and often distributors get it wrong). Even if flash is perfectly reimplemented, then, we still have all the problems with codec patent issues.
gnash codecs Posted Feb 2, 2010 17:21 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
gnash could just distribute the codecs themselves. We've been doing it at FFmpeg/MPlayer for 10 years without problems. If they are afraid to do it themselves, they should get a hoster that is not.
Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web Posted Feb 2, 2010 15:19 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Flash is in principle the lesser evil, since (I believe) it can be legally
> re-implemented in Free Software. H.264 cannot, in many parts of the world.
This is wrong, please get a clue about patents. It is not illegal to implement a patented technique, in free or proprietary software, anywhere in the world.
Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web Posted Feb 2, 2010 16:41 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] This is wrong, please get a clue about patents. It is not illegal to implement a patented technique, in free or proprietary software, anywhere in the world.http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States or importing the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.(emphasis mine)
patents and legality Posted Feb 3, 2010 1:47 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Correct. The patent holder receives a *right*, not an obligation. That very much does not make the act of implementing a patented technique illegal. The patent holder may choose never to enforce rights or you may reach some sort of deal.
This is very much unlike stealing or murder, where the state has an obligation to go after you and where you can never be excused or make a deal.
|
|||||||||||||