Chris DiBona writes:
this issue is actually not about submarined patents (more like
aircraft carrier patents) or tricky corner cases for the lgpl., but
that the internet users prefer more quality in their
codecs/megabyte/second.
I'm not so sure. YouTube is very popular despite the fact
It is impractical to convert video that was already compressed. My attempt
to convert QuickTime to Theora inflated the file from 10 MB to 50 MB; this
is unacceptable. Moreover, unpleasant visual artifacts appeared.
I was told it must be like that; you can get satisfactory compression
results
Am Montag, den 08.06.2009, 12:47 +0200 schrieb Křištof Želechovski:
I suspect Google cannot convert most of the
video it already serves even if they wanted to.
I suspect Google, with its enourmous storage capacity, has the original
files of each and every video ever uploaded. But only Youtube
People are reluctant to learn new tools and new ways. Most of the time it
is a sane protection from overwhelming abundance. It is not limited to
programming languages, it can affect also video encoders. It even affects
telephones (some people dislike telephones with keys).
Bjarne Stroustrup on
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Chris DiBonacdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking out loud: One thing that was mentioned in an earlier post:
Vorbis. I am also of the mind that Vorbis is of higher quality/mb/sec
and statically than is mp3. The only real problem is that people don't
pirate with it,
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Silvia
Pfeiffersilviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Chris DiBonacdib...@gmail.com wrote:
..
I'm not even sure that writing it into the standard would make vendors
actually support it, for the reasons above. If everyone had only the
The VIDEO element will not be useless without a common decoder. Its
usefulness depends on its content: it will be limited to user agents that
support at least one encoding offered by the author. Even if a common
decoder is specified, many authors will not use it because they do not know
it, they
2009/6/7 Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
I do appreciate your willingness not discuss these matters, though.
Thanks.
As I said, it's clear we won't convince everyone,
I question the relevance to HTML5 of someone from a
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/7 Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
I do appreciate your willingness not discuss these matters, though.
Thanks.
As I said, it's clear we
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
giecr...@stegny.2a.plwrote:
The VIDEO element will not be useless without a common decoder. Its
usefulness depends on its content: it will be limited to user agents that
support at least one encoding offered by the author. Even if a common
2009/6/7 King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com:
And where the heck would reluctant to learn come from? This isn't a
programming language, it is a codec! All they have to do is change the
selection of codecs on the output of their video.
As for not knowing it, there is already some publicity on Ogg
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/7 King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com:
And where the heck would reluctant to learn come from? This isn't a
programming language, it is a codec! All they have to do is change the
selection of codecs on the output of
Hello,
I also understand that the LGPL doesn't explicitly require [anyone]
to pass along patent rights we may have obtained elsewhere. However,
it seems quite clear that the intention of #11 is to say that you
cannot redistribute the code unless you do exactly that.
What am I missing?
At
You guys would probably be less confused if you actually stuck to the terms
of the license instead of trying to parse the examples :)
In any case, I doubt its worth asking the fsf, since at least in the US,
only the ffmpeg folks would have standing to enforce, so its their view that
really
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
However, let me ask *you* a question.
Why do you rely on the example instead of the actual clause from that
part of the conditions?
You realize the example has roughly no legal effect, right? It does
not add or modify the terms and conditions of the license.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Chris DiBonacdib...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point I feel like we're giving open source advice to teams
outside of Google, which is beyond our mission. We're comfortable with
our compliance mission and feel it is accurate and correct. Other
companies and people
The incredibly sucky outcome is that Chrome ships patent-encumbered
open web features, just like Apple. That is reprehensible.
Reprehensible? Mozilla (and all the rest) supports those same open
web features through its plugin architecture. Why don't you make a
stand and shut down compatibility
Am Montag, den 08.06.2009, 09:24 +0900 schrieb Chris DiBona:
The incredibly sucky outcome is that Chrome ships patent-encumbered
open web features, just like Apple. That is reprehensible.
Reprehensible? Mozilla (and all the rest) supports those same open
web features through its plugin
Hello Dan,
In any case, I doubt its worth asking the fsf, since at least in the
US, only the ffmpeg folks would have standing to enforce, so its
their view that really matters.
The FSF might be able to provide some guidance on the intentions of
the license as this seems to be the bit that
I'm perfectly calm, what people need to realize is that this issue is
actually not about submarined patents (more like aircraft carrier
patents) or tricky corner cases for the lgpl., but that the internet
users prefer more quality in their codecs/megabyte/second. So long as
this is true this issue
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Reprehensible? Mozilla (and all the rest) supports those same open
web features through its plugin architecture.
People don't usually think of Flash as part of the open Web (except for
certain Adobe evangelists).
Why
Am Montag, den 08.06.2009, 09:42 +0900 schrieb Chris DiBona:
I'm perfectly calm, what people need to realize is that this issue is
actually not about submarined patents (more like aircraft carrier
patents) or tricky corner cases for the lgpl.,
That sounds too qood to be true — so can we throw
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm perfectly calm, what people need to realize is that this issue is
actually not about submarined patents (more like aircraft carrier
patents) or tricky corner cases for the lgpl., but that the internet
users prefer more
I'm okay with Flak, and I really do believe in shipping
free/unemcumbered software (see our lgpl discussion earlier). That
said, I dislike when I'm accused of being reprehensible by another
browser vendor. It seems unfairly nasty to me.
Thinking out loud: One thing that was mentioned in an
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Chris DiBonacdib...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm okay with Flak, and I really do believe in shipping
free/unemcumbered software (see our lgpl discussion earlier). That
said, I dislike when I'm accused of being reprehensible by another
browser vendor.
This line of
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Robert Sayre say...@gmail.com wrote:
I
wrote about the practice of shipping encumbered software and calling
it open.
Where is the language where Google is calling H.264 open?
The closest I know of is Google Chrome is made possible by the Chromium
open source
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the particular parallel you've drawn there is the appropriate
one.
And I think you failed to answer the line in my email that asked what the
point of this tangent is.
PK
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the particular parallel you've drawn there is the
appropriate one.
And I think you failed to answer the line in my email that
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
and this License would be to refrain entirely from
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Library by all those who
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, King InuYashangomp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, King InuYashangomp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com
wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
I get parsing errors in my brain when reading this. While I understand
that you do not impose any new restrictions (as per #10), I still
don't understand how you can claim that #11 (the first two quotes
above) has no relevance in your case. To me, it seems
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't
understand your reasoning.
I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going to have to
agree to disagree, because it's clear neither of us are going
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Daniel Berlindan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't
understand your reasoning.
I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going
At this point I feel like we're giving open source advice to teams
outside of Google, which is beyond our mission. We're comfortable with
our compliance mission and feel it is accurate and correct. Other
companies and people need to make their own decisions about
compliance.
Chris
On Sun, Jun 7,
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point I feel like we're giving open source advice to teams
outside of Google, which is beyond our mission. We're comfortable with
our compliance mission and feel it is accurate and correct. Other
companies and
To me, it seems more like Google doesn't really want to take a position in
the matter regarding codecs and is taking the weird way out by using
ffmpeg. Given Google's dominance in search, which tends to bring people to
at least look at Google's products, anything Google does is examined with a
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I think we've taken a very clear position on compliance but...
[snip]
This is really a matter for the spec to handle one way or another, not
Google.
Chris
Compliance does not mean taking a position. It just
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Yeah, this is really pretty difficult stuff. The lgpl is probably the
least understood and most complicated free software licenses.
Chris
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:34:08 +0200, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, this is really pretty difficult stuff. The lgpl is probably the
least understood and most complicated free software licenses.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it!
--
Anne van Kesteren
I mostly wanted to explain our position on the use of the library and
the LGPLs. Danny keeps it all straight for us.
Happy hacking, everyone!
Chris
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:34:08 +0200, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com
Looping in Dannyb (who may not be on the list, so if necessary, I'll
forward) as I'm in the midst of a conference and can't give this the
attention it deserves.
Chris
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Håkon Wium Lie howc...@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Chris DiBona:
To be clear, there are two
On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:58, Chris DiBona wrote:
One participant quoted one of the examples from the LGPL 2.1, which
says For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only
Looping in Danny (in transit)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon
foolist...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:58, Chris DiBona wrote:
One participant quoted one of the examples from the LGPL 2.1, which
says For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Looping in Dannyb (who may not be on the list, so if necessary, I'll
forward) as I'm in the midst of a conference and can't give this the
attention it deserves.
Chris
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Håkon Wium Lie
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Looping in Danny (in transit)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon
foolist...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:58, Chris DiBona wrote:
One participant quoted one of the examples from the LGPL 2.1,
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Looping in Danny (in transit)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon
foolist...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:58, Chris DiBona
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
[snip]
I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent
fees for doing so.
No more or less trouble than you would have gotten in had you gotten
it from ffmpeg instead of us, which combined with the fact that we
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Looping in Danny (in transit)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Geoffrey
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
[snip]
I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent
fees for doing so.
No more or less trouble than you would have gotten in had you
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
[snip]
I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent
fees for
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
[snip]
I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent
fees for
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
Also sprach Chris DiBona:
To be clear, there are two situations here:
Situation 1:
(a) Party A gives Party B a library licensed under the LGPL 2.1 along
with a patent license which says only Party B has the right to use it
(b) Party B wants to distribute the library to others
57 matches
Mail list logo
