Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Apr 2010 22:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 420173
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:22
in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Uh, wrong. It is an open standard. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free. So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".
"Published" != "Open".
"Open" = "Published specification, anyone may implement, no royalties apply, freely re-distributable".
H.264 is published, and it is a standard, but it is NOT an open standard.
Edited 2010-04-22 02:24 UTC
RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by tyrione on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 04:08
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
"Uh, wrong. It is an open standard. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free. So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".
"Published" != "Open".
"Open" = "Published specification, anyone may implement, no royalties apply, freely re-distributable".
H.264 is published, and it is a standard, but it is NOT an open standard. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process).
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasise different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.
Keep arguing. There are probably 30 variations listed on that link.
RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 03:16
in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Uh, wrong. It is an open standard.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e
This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free.
So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e
This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free.
So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".
first you declare it to be open and then you acknowledge it to be patented/proprietary. you sir, are double speaking,misinformed or didnt think through your comment,
Patented technology are not "open", they are "proprietary". Since h,264 is proprietary, apple should have included it on the side flash is.
Edited 2010-04-22 03:17 UTC
RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Smeagol on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 05:51
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"





Member since:
2006-01-16
Uh, wrong. It is an open standard.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/e
This doesn't mean there aren't patents & licensing associated with it. Open != free.
So, Apple is perfectly correct in making this statement and is not "lying".