| |||||||||||||
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royaltiesFFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royaltiesPosted Jan 26, 2010 21:33 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627)In reply to: FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties by DonDiego Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
Chrome doesn't use a system FFmpeg. They ship their own FFmpeg, which Google has paid MPEG-LA to obtain a license for.
(Log in to post comments)
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 31, 2010 11:46 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I'll have to note here that Google likely had an MPEG LA license anyway, same as all the other big players. Since they calculate with the cost of that license to operate, browser or not, no extra costs are incurred if they ship H.264 support. That's one of the reasons why MPEG LA patent licenses do not make them break a sweat.
|
|||||||||||||