Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Oct 2009 21:26 UTC
Permalink for comment 389928
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-20
To begin with, H.264 isn't a proprietary codec. It's an ISO and ITU standard.
What is the problem is that you need to pay license fees to actually use it. If you provide it in source-only form then the consensus is that you don't need to pay any fees but if you provide binaries, you need to pay fees. To address this, Google pays the license for Chrome even though they don't charge their users whereas Chromium, the open source project, doesn't pay any fees and isn't allowed to distribute the AVC codec in binary form and apparently doesn't provide it in source form either.