I didn't say anything about distributing source code. To a first approximation users download binaries, not source code (things like Gentoo and MacPorts are ed

I didn't say anything about distributing source code. To a first approximation users download binaries, not source code (things like Gentoo and MacPorts are edge cases; very few users use either one, really) . What I said is that the old Chrome model, wherein the official binaries ship H.264 and have a paid-for license, if adopted by Firefox, would have meant two things, as I understand: 1) If someone wants to take the Mozilla binaries and redistribute them (possibly with some simple changes like a different default theme or a default preferences file that whitelists some intranet sites or whatever) they have to pay for an H.264 license. Things like copying Firefox from your computer to your friend's computer would need you to have an H.264 encoder license, since you're creating a new encoder (now it happens that the license fee for that level of distribution is 0, so you're actually ok; just don't put that modified package on a public web site). 2) If someone wants to fork the Mozilla codebase and build a browser with equivalent functionality and distribute it, they have to pay for an H.264 license. #2 there is precisely what GPLv3 is intended to prevent, by the way. Mozilla is licensed under GPLv2, so this would be within the letter of the license, but arguably not the spirit. Certainly we felt that it would not be within the spirit.