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
2009/6/7 jjcogliati-wha...@yahoo.com:
There are concerns or issues with all of these:
a) a number of large companies are concerned about the possible
unintended entanglements of the open-source codecs; a 'deep pockets'
company deploying them may be subject to risk here. Google and other
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
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/7 jjcogliati-wha...@yahoo.com:
There are concerns or issues with all of these:
a) a number of large companies are concerned about the possible
unintended entanglements of the open-source codecs; a 'deep
On 7 Jun 2009, at 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/7 jjcogliati-wha...@yahoo.com:
There are concerns or issues with all of these:
a) a number of large companies are concerned about the possible
unintended entanglements of the open-source codecs; a 'deep pockets'
company deploying them may
2009/6/7 Geoffrey Sneddon foolist...@googlemail.com:
How is it incredible? Who has looked at the submarine patents? They by
definition are unpublished! Yes, certainly, published patents are well
researched, but this is not the objection that anyone has made to it.
It is not credible to claim
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
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/7 Geoffrey Sneddon foolist...@googlemail.com:
How is it incredible? Who has looked at the submarine patents? They by
definition are unpublished! Yes, certainly, published patents are well
researched, but this is not the objection that
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:24 PM, King InuYashangomp...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, what is the POINT of supporting any codec if it will cause
inconveniences to anybody (e.g. patent royalties, high licensing fees,
etc.)?
Originally Ogg support was required by HTML5, AFAIK. However, Apple
has
On 6/6/2009 4:10 AM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Instead of:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr / --
citeWilliam Hazlitt/cite/li
Consider:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr /
(William Hazlitt)/li
Reads equally good, if not better.
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 Sun, 6/7/09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Codec mess with video and audio tags
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 9:30 AM
2009/6/7 jjcogliati-wha...@yahoo.com:
There are concerns or issues
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Every codec has the same problem; the difference is that companies like
Apple have already taken on the patent risk with MPEG-LA licensed codecs
and are not willing to double their exposure. (Other companies like Google
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
2009/6/7 jjcogliati-wha...@yahoo.com:
I have looked for evidence of that there has been any patent research on
the Ogg codecs. I assume that Google, Redhat and others have at least
done some research, but I have yet to find any public research
information. I probably am just missing the
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:24 PM, King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote:
The HTML 5 specification should definitely support a codec that fulfills
the following legal criteria:
At the end of the day, the spec does not mandate vendor behavior; rather
vendor consensus informs the spec. For
Am Sonntag, den 07.06.2009, 16:37 -0700 schrieb Peter Kasting:
I do note that in a vacuum, there isn't a problem with not specifying
any codec, as IIRC no codecs are specified for the img tag and yet
practically most browsers implement a common subset and the web
basically works.
still,
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
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
I do note that in a vacuum, there isn't a problem with not specifying
any codec, as IIRC no codecs are
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:13 PM, King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote:
Google, Apple, and the other naysayers for Ogg video
I think you are officially Wasting Our Time when you say something like
Google... and the other naysayers about a company that is _shipping Ogg
audio and video support
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:13 PM, King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote:
Google, Apple, and the other naysayers for Ogg video
I think you are officially Wasting Our Time when you say something like
Google... and the
37 matches
Mail list logo
