On 10/31/2013 08:02 AM, Lukas Benedix wrote:
Maybe you want to read this article: http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/61927.html
lbenedix
Thanks for the pointer. I somewhat understand where he is coming from.
However, it is still disappointing. "Open source projects get licensed (if partial and restricted) access to H.264" does not really ring true to me. Apparently the founder of Xiph now considers H.264 unavoidable/essential functionality (that seems to be what he means by "we're taking it"), at least for now.
But if your software requires downloading a binary blob for key functionality, it's not really open source. This also really illustrates why open standards and open source are better. Weird workarounds like downloading codecs at runtime are not needed for open standards.
The fact that the Cisco codec is open source is irrelevant, since if you build it yourself, the patent license does not apply.
Speaking only for myself,
Matt Flaschen