Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th May 2010 22:19 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 425896
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[3]: Comment by Lazarus
by B. Janssen on Sat 22nd May 2010 10:12
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Lazarus"
Thanks, we must attach different meanings to "unclear" then.
Nothing the MPEG-LA can write into their license will allow them to retroactively charge anybody. Therefore the terms of use today are perfectly clear. Obviously the MPEG-LA (if it still exists) can change the terms of use in 2015, or really anytime they like, but this is also perfectly clear.
I agree that the future changes to the license will probably for the worse if h264 gains a stranglehold on content encoding, but angsting about the future actions of the MPEG-LA is not making anything they said unclear. It's just another reason to not use h264.
Edited 2010-05-22 10:13 UTC




Member since:
2010-03-25
Well the "this might change" bit certainly makes things unclear, but at last we're clear that it's not clear, it's a known unknown, you might say.