FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties
Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:16 UTC (Tue) by pboddie
In reply to: FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties
Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
You can of course use FFmpeg and pay the MPEG-LA if you are so inclined. There are companies that do it. The MPEG-LA could not care less which implementation is used.
So that's the argument, is it? Just pay up? There are people who redistribute Mozilla software, you know, and the whole business has significant implications for Free Software implementations of Web technologies. And let us not forget all the companies who would rather have various MPEG-related technologies embedded in Web standards instead of ones which are ostensibly unencumbered.
Mozilla could use a system FFmpeg just like Chrome does. No patent liabilities would be incurred on Mozilla.
Which brings us back to the patent licensing controversy where Google's licence covers Google, naturally, and Google's "evangelists" insist that they're not violating the licensing terms of FFmpeg even according to the spirit of those terms.
to post comments)