4 ms·
H.264 is OPEN. It's just not FREE. There's a big difference in the two.
by count 17y ago
H.264 is OPEN. It's just not FREE. There's a big difference in the two.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoIt's not an "open standard" according to most definitions, just a "standard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
- Terretta 17y agoA careful reading of your link seems to support parent's comment.
- smackfu 17y agoThat link has 14 different definitions of "open standard".
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoAnd 12 say "open standards" can't have patent royalties (i.e. H.264 is not an open standard). 1, which just happens to be a statement from a body that issues patent royalty bearing telecommunication standards, and which is explicitly responding to industry moves that prompted the other 12 definitions of "open standards" says, actually our standards have always been "open" and they include patent royalties. Note that no other such body I'm aware of (such as ISO, MPEG, IETF) declares their royalty bearing standards as "open standards". (The other one is just a historical curiosity, like someone referring to their source code being "open" years before "open source" was a thing)
- jorgecastillo 17y agoFlash may be FREE but only for Windows, Mac OS X And Linux users(and it does a poor job in the last two). Everyone else has to live with out flash or pray that gnash works if they really need the functionality. I think I rather have widespread HTML5 use even it means widespread H.264. Even if the worst comes to be they can't possibly have the money and time it takes to sue all the millions of H.264 users there will be. On top of it different countries have different laws.