I believe this is to date the sanest article related to the H.264/WebM debacle; it clearly, and with detail, brings out the fact that H.264 is open. However, it

I believe this is to date the sanest article related to the H.264/WebM debacle; it clearly, and with detail, brings out the fact that H.264 is open. However, it fails to clarify a very important detail to this discussion, surrounding the royalty issue: H.264 coding/decoding is free-of-charge to implement, distribute and use in non-commercial contexts. Google's, Mozilla's and Opera's actions and careless, uninformed (or possibly intentionally slanderous) responses in this discussion clearly show that their issue with H.264 isn't that H.264 isn't open enough, but rather that it isn't gratis enough.