|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties

FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties

Posted 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.

to post comments

FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties

Posted Jan 31, 2010 11:46 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (guest, #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.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds