Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:11 UTC
Permalink for comment 428770
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-02
Comparing the common expression « openbar » and the word « open » in the ISO mean is not serious!! The word « open » come from the 70’s (or even before) at a time when IBM use it’s own « standard » and didn’t publish them.
Now « open » means that is published and the specs (an *complete*) are publicly available, but:
1) It’s not mandatory for the Specs to be free
2) Some patents may affect some parts, in which case some « fairuse » should be attached
So that everyone can use them...
That the case for h264! This codec is part of more general standards.
MPEG-LA is the bad one as you said, not h264!! There are not the owner of the standard!!! They are the proxy of the owners of the patents!!!
The combat here is to have a predictable and clear licensing policy and make sure that such policy respect the « fairuse ».
But again you’re the one who is misleading here!! H264 is an Open Standard by any normalization organization...
At this level, as a journalist you should keep the fact and stop saying false assertion!