3 ms·
Or you just delegate to the OS, which either already ships a licensed copy of the codec (Windows and OS X) or has users who ignore patents and install unlicense
by ubernostrum 17y ago
Or you just delegate to the OS, which either already ships a licensed copy of the codec (Windows and OS X) or has users who ignore patents and install unlicensed codecs (Linux). By doing this you incur a whopping license fee of... zero dollars, because licensing becomes someone else's problem.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoIt's not someone else's problem if your stated mission is to be "dedicated to promoting and preserving an open, shared and innovative web." It's like a shareholder owned corporation deciding that making money is someone else's problem.
- ubernostrum 17y agoIt is an ideological issue; look at my other comments and you'll see me saying that. My problem with comments like the one I was replying to is that they refuse to see this; there is an easy solution to the financial issue of codec licensing, but it keeps getting thrown out as a red herring, when the focus should be on whether Mozilla's ideological stance is a good thing.
- allyt 17y agothey refuse to see this Nah, just hadn't read up/thought about the issue enough, thanks for explaining. I'm actually a bit of a supporter of software patents, as they give business reason to invest boatloads of money in things like H.264 to begin with.
- GHFigs 17y agoThen why do they still allow me to use Adobe's h.264 license?
- sid0 17y ago> which either already ships a licensed copy of the codec (Windows and OS X) Only Windows 7 does.