Maybe you want to read this article: http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/61927.html lbenedix m Do 31.10.2013 10:26, schrieb Brion Vibber:

On 10/31/2013 05:26 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: Also, my understanding is that while some people at the Foundation have thought about supporting proprietary *formats* (as an exception to our support for open standards), we would still use open source software for them. Cisco is basically paying licensing fees for a proprietary codec, but it only applies to someone if they use their binaries. Although Cisco's upstream codec will be open source (BSD), the license is not valid if you build your own binaries (which you have to do if you make even a simple change, or just to verify what you're running). Since we (and third parties) would not be able to control the binaries we ran, it is not open source in a meaningful sense. I don't think we should use such software to run the site, all the more so for key user-facing functionality like media. We could still rebuild Cisco's BSD code, but the patent license would not be valid (let alone for third parties). So it's the same position as if we just decided to use e.g. the open source x264, then somehow find a one-off solution to the licensing problems. So this does not change anything in my view. Speaking only for myself, Matt Flaschen

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just serving the same bits back out that you saw uploaded isn't enough; just as with still photos we need to be able to convert formats and resize to fit appropriate bandwidth and processing limits. As with still photos, we want to archive the highest-resolution, highest-quality source material (today that generally means pre-compressed .mp4 files at up to 1080p HD)... but for most viewers we'll actually ship a lower-resolution, lower-bitrate transcode. Also keep in mind that the announced Cisco H.264 codec is video only; most .mp4 video files include *audio* tracks encoded in AAC, another patent-encumbered part of the MPEG-4 family. There may or may not be further announcements from Mozilla about audio codecs -- we can only wait -- but Cisco's involvement appears to be specific to WebRTC, and they claim no plans to provide a licensed AAC codec or otherwise support general .mp4 file playback. If all this makes you want to just punch patents in the nose and run away, that's understandable... -- brion

<quote name="Brad Jorsch (Anomie)" date="2013-10-31" time="10:04:56 -0400"> Also good reading on the topic, from one of the main authors of Opus (the best audio codec available, and it happens to be big F Free) and long time Wikipedian Greg Maxwell: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/571978/3226db9ce394bf07/ (LWN Subscriber link, join if you like good reporting in this area) "Codec licensing amounts to a billion-dollar tax on communication software. In addition, it is used as a weapon between battling competitors, so it even affects people in countries without software patents." quoth Greg. Other Greg. -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |