On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> If all this makes you want to just punch patents in the nose and run away,
> that's understandable...
>
:/ it does. It really does.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Flaschen >wrote:
>
> > So this does not change anything in my view.
>
>
> Actually it changes something pretty important. This means that now all
> major browsers will have H.264 support. MediaWiki may
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> So this does not change anything in my view.
Actually it changes something pretty important. This means that now all
major browsers will have H.264 support. MediaWiki may not be able to encode
its own videos in H.264, but we can still ser
On 10/31/2013 05:26 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
We're churning through some internal discussion with legal on if and how
how this affects our potential options...
Note that the specific thing announced there doesn't include a licensed AAC
*audio* codec which would be required to generate audio and v
On 10/31/2013 08:02 AM, Lukas Benedix wrote:
Maybe you want to read this article:
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/61927.html
lbenedix
Thanks for the pointer. I somewhat understand where he is coming from.
However, it is still disappointing. "Open source projects get licensed
(if partial an
On 10/31/2013 10:57 AM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
Also good reading on the topic, from one of the main authors of Opus
(the best audio codec available, and it happens to be big F Free) and
long time Wikipedian Greg Maxwell:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/571978/3226db9ce394bf07/
Thanks, that was a
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Antoine Musso wrote:
> > Le 31/10/13 10:10, Magnus Manske a écrit :
> >> http://gigaom.com/2013/10/30/mozilla-will-add-h-264-to-firefox-as-cisco-makes-eleventh-hour-push-for-webrtcs-future/?t=t
> >>
> >> So, should we support this format now? (not advocating, ju
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Antoine Musso wrote:
> Le 31/10/13 10:10, Magnus Manske a écrit :
>> http://gigaom.com/2013/10/30/mozilla-will-add-h-264-to-firefox-as-cisco-makes-eleventh-hour-push-for-webrtcs-future/?t=t
>>
>> So, should we support this format now? (not advocating, just curious)
Le 31/10/13 10:10, Magnus Manske a écrit :
> http://gigaom.com/2013/10/30/mozilla-will-add-h-264-to-firefox-as-cisco-makes-eleventh-hour-push-for-webrtcs-future/?t=t
>
> So, should we support this format now? (not advocating, just curious)
Can we get a summary?
--
Antoine "hashar" Musso
Maybe you want to read this article:
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/61927.html
lbenedix
m Do 31.10.2013 10:26, schrieb Brion Vibber:
> We're churning through some internal discussion with legal on if and how
> how this affects our potential options...
>
> Note that the specific thing announced t
We're churning through some internal discussion with legal on if and how
how this affects our potential options...
Note that the specific thing announced there doesn't include a licensed AAC
*audio* codec which would be required to generate audio and video+audio
files playable on current browsers
http://gigaom.com/2013/10/30/mozilla-will-add-h-264-to-firefox-as-cisco-makes-eleventh-hour-push-for-webrtcs-future/?t=t
So, should we support this format now? (not advocating, just curious)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http
12 matches
Mail list logo
