Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 14:20 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Internet & Networking Despite the recent interest in adopting HTML5's video tag, there is still one major problem: there is no mandated standard video codec for the video tag. The two main contestants are the proprietary and patended h264, and the open and free Theora. In a comment on an article about this problematic situation, LWN reader Trelane posted an email exchange he had with MPEG-LA, which should further cement Theora as the obvious choice.
Thread beginning with comment 407063
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sun 31st Jan 2010 16:56 UTC
Member since:

edit Removed. Stupid comment, not noticing the answer was already in the linked article.

Edited 2010-01-31 16:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 16:59 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

That means that if you are *viewing* H.264 content that the publisher has not licenced, then you the viewer are liable too

Yes. That's what the email explains.

"I would also like to mention that while our Licenses are not concluded by End Users, anyone in the product chain has liability if an end product is unlicensed."

Pretty clear, people. Why are we even debating this fact?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by cerbie on Sun 31st Jan 2010 18:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
cerbie Member since:

...because that is lawyer-speak, which does take some real effort for many of us to parse, for whom English is our native language. It's like vulgar British English v. US English. I can read, and wonder what was just said, then go back and read more carefully, logically working it out.

"(...) not concluded by End Users," is not a phrase we normally read, nor is the grammar common. On top of that, what it really does mean does not make much sense, at first read, given that the idea is rather absurd.

Reply Parent Score: 2