Linked by lemur2 on Wed 9th Mar 2011 00:18 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 465558
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]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM
by lemur2 on Thu 10th Mar 2011 05:46
in reply to "RE[2]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM"
"Has open source implementations of encoders and decoders. This is not a "pro". Open source implementations of encoders and decoders simply ignore the fact that users in some countries require a license. It is left up to said users to get that license. People (especially in the US) could be caught unawares by this, and have to pay fines.
Source code is speech, which is supposedly free in "civilized" nations. Binaries on the other hand... " This does not rebut the point made.
""Well documented" is true, "open" is not, because to be "open" requires that implementing the specification is royalty-free. This is not the case with H.264.
Only in Europe, which is also the only place your definition of libre makes sense. " This does not rebut the point made.




Member since:
2009-01-08
This is not a "pro". Open source implementations of encoders and decoders simply ignore the fact that users in some countries require a license. It is left up to said users to get that license. People (especially in the US) could be caught unawares by this, and have to pay fines.
Source code is speech, which is supposedly free in "civilized" nations.
Binaries on the other hand...
"Well documented" is true, "open" is not, because to be "open" requires that implementing the specification is royalty-free. This is not the case with H.264.
Only in Europe, which is also the only place your definition of libre makes sense.
Edited 2011-03-10 05:30 UTC