On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 18:29 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On So, Mai 30, 2010 at 17:15:21 (CEST), Sebastian Dröge wrote: > > >> That's what someone else says about this issue: > >> http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/50239.html?thread=135231#t135231 > > > > Also interesting on the patent situation of VP8 and the blog you linked: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-May/047795.html > > The fact that the xiph folks argue this way is unsurprising. So we have > two parties arguing against each other. It still does not excuse > ftp-master's lack of response in this matter.
Yes, that's exactly the reason why I've mentioned these. What some random guys on the internet say doesn't mean much, it's the courts which decide if something infringe some patent or not. Still, the situation of MPEG codecs and VP8 is something completely different and using the acceptance of libvpx as an argument here doesn't make sense (because for MPEG codecs there are known patents and it's known that you have to get a license from MPEG-LA for them. For VP8 we can assume that Google owns patents but even if that's the case everybody gets a free license. If there are other patents on VP8 or not is not known and that's the case for more or less every piece of software out there... even for the MPEG codecs there could be non-MPEG-LA patents that nobody knows about yet). I agree with you that the MPEG situation should be commented by an ftp-master though.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
