FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties
Posted Jan 27, 2010 15:02 UTC (Wed) 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
So that's the argument, is it? Just pay up?
I never said anything of the sort. I just had to counter the nonsense claim that Fluendo codecs are in any way more "legal" than those from FFmpeg.
If you want implementations of the MPEG cartel's technologies in Mozilla software, then you more or less have to advocate that the Mozilla organisation pays up: they aren't going to get away with distributing the software as a US-based organisation without doing so. The alternative is that Mozilla doesn't incorporate such technologies.
Yes, it is a disgrace that people can use patents to paint legitimately distributed software as not being "legal" and to undermine the licensing terms of Free Software. The ways to get around this include campaigning for an end to software patents and avoidance of encumbered technologies until the former objective is achieved.
There are people who redistribute Mozilla software, you know, and the whole business has significant implications for Free Software implementations of Web technologies.
Spare me the condescending tone please.
Well, it is about redistribution. High-profile distributors given the choice of either being pursued by an aggressive patent cartel or not distributing an application, all because encumbered technology was embedded in a Free Software application, will not choose the former option regardless of any insistence that the licensing fees are optional.
Google is violating neither the letter nor the spirit of FFmpeg's license. What gives you such weird ideas?
Oh, just some weird Web site called LWN.net...
to post comments)