Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Internet & Networking Ever since it became clear that Google was not going to push WebM as hard as they should have, the day would come that Mozilla would be forced to abandon its ideals because the large technology companies don't care about an open, unencumbered web. No decision has been made just yet, but Mozilla is taking its first strides to adding support for the native H.264 codecs installed on users' mobile systems. See it as a thank you to Mozilla for all they've done for the web.
Thread beginning with comment 510735
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Whatevs.
by umccullough on Thu 15th Mar 2012 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Whatevs."
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

"Derivatives suffer the same plight - if I create a new Linux distro, am I licensed to distribute a working h.264 implementation?


I'm sure the same way it works for other codecs like mp3.
"

So no, I'm not licensed, and I just release it hoping that nobody will come after me even though the software itself is FOSS and every attempt has been made to work around the patents, thus potentially producing a sub-standard implementation that runs like shit on even the fastest processors.

Thanks for clearing that up...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Whatevs.
by WorknMan on Fri 16th Mar 2012 00:09 in reply to "RE[9]: Whatevs."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So no, I'm not licensed, and I just release it hoping that nobody will come after me even though the software itself is FOSS and every attempt has been made to work around the patents, thus potentially producing a sub-standard implementation that runs like shit on even the fastest processors.


Well, now you're sort of off-topic. The original suggestion about H264 in open source browsers was to use the codec that's built into the OS, and then somebody came along and said this would prevent somebody from innovating with a new OS. To which I said you're not going to build a new OS that a great number of people care about without a serious influx of cash, so you could afford to license the codec anyway.

But what you're talking about is YALD (Yet Another Linux Distro), not a new OS. I assume that Linux users have access to this codec already (if not built in, then readily available), so whatever method they're currently using to get it is obviously working.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Whatevs.
by umccullough on Fri 16th Mar 2012 06:23 in reply to "RE[10]: Whatevs."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Well, now you're sort of off-topic.


Not really, it's all related when it comes to FOSS...

To which I said you're not going to build a new OS that a great number of people care about without a serious influx of cash, so you could afford to license the codec anyway.


Right, I didn't mention Haiku, ReactOS, AROS, etc., because I thought you would just mock them - but tjese are OSes that a relatively large number of people care about - which do not have a "serious influx of cash", and also suffer from this same problem. Haiku is currently distributing ffmpeg as the implementation for codecs, but ffmpeg doesn't provide a patent license (nor does VideoLAN for that matter...).

But what you're talking about is YALD (Yet Another Linux Distro), not a new OS. I assume that Linux users have access to this codec already (if not built in, then readily available), so whatever method they're currently using to get it is obviously working.


I think you're under the impression that all of the solutions that are "obviously working" are legal - and you'd be wrong. Unless you mean "obviously working" == "ignoring the problem and hoping it blows over"... which is basically what most FOSS users are doing these days. The only licensed Linux (patented) codecs I know of are distributed by Fluendo, which cost money of course, and generally cause problems.

So again, you seem assume that somehow all of this is magically taken care of, and only some huge organization with unlimited funds and resources is ever going to have to deal with it...

Even if Mozilla was somehow miraculously able to obtain a license for all their Firefox users - it would not ever likely extend to unofficial Firefox-based browsers such as the ones ported to AmigaOS and Haiku (well... when it's finally updated again). The same thing exists for Webkit, and Chromium - Apple and Google can not relicense these patents to other developers who re-use the codebase.

I guess that's the price that we pay for building our own software, either infringe the patents, or do without.

Reply Parent Score: 3