4 ms·
Err, because MPEG-LA and the other patent holders that didn't join knows that Fabrice Bellard didn't license the patent from them, so you used an unlicensed enc
by codexon 12y ago
Err, because MPEG-LA and the other patent holders that didn't join knows that Fabrice Bellard didn't license the patent from them, so you used an unlicensed encoder.
If you stick that poly-fill on your website they can also sue you for distributing the decoder to everyone that downloaded the javascript file.
- reubenmorais 12y agoIANAL, and this might be a simple case of letter vs. spirit, but my understanding was that shipping the decoder's source is allowed, so with a JS implementation you're theoretically safe. This was one of the arguments around Broadway, the JS H.264 decoder.
- tjohns 12y agoI'd argue there's a difference between shipping source code, and actually embedding it in your page via a <script> tag. Once you embed the script into your page for execution, you're building a derivative work -- not just publishing technical details. Otherwise JS would become a universal patent loophole, which I'm pretty sure a judge would find fault with. (IANAL also.)