Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th May 2010 21:48 UTC
Permalink for comment 423198
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 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
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
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-07-15
Wrong. Answering yes will install the unlicensed versions of these codecs. Now, personally, I couldn't give less of a crap, but if you're doing business in the US and other places where software patents exist then you'd better care and put a licensed codec on your systems less the patent holders go after you, your descendants, your customers, and anyone else who might have even heard of you. MPEG-LA has already said they can do this.
Uh, hello? It's free software. They can do whatever the hell they want with it so long as they don't violate any of the foss licenses of the software they package. Canonical is not violating any licenses here, and they've outright stated that they want to make a Linux that just works. Well, playing H.264 and other proprietary video formats qualifies as "just works", and in the US you can't blithely ignore threats from organizations like the MPEG-LA if you're in business. They can and they will ring you for all you're worth if you do and get caught.