On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
It's not immediately clear to me that a Mozilla license would not
cover
redistribution, for instance the license fees paid by OS vendors
generally cover redistribution when the OS is bundled with a PC. I
think
someone would have to look at the legal language of the agreement
to see
if it covers redistribution.
Mozilla can also be compiled and distributed by third parties. E.g.
Debian distributes a slightly modified version of Firefox as
"Iceweasel"
AFAIK. They wouldn't be covered by a license Mozilla buys.
This may be the case, but it is not immediately obvious to me.
- They appreciate that there are a wide variety of distribution
models;
for browsers, and do not want to choose technologies which work
only
for some of those;
Unfortunately, Ogg does not work for some browsers either.
Well, for text browsers or on platforms that don't have the processing
juice to decode it (then they couldn't decode MPEG4 whatever-part
either). I'd say that are platforms that usually don't even have
feature
complete browsers anyway.
As mentioned many times before, there are widely available hardware
implementations of MPEG4, making it usable for low power devices. And
yes, there are mobile devices with feature-complete browsers.
I don't think that is true, but it would depend on the details of the
MPEG-LA license agreement. Also, at most the MPEG4 implementation
would
not be free software, this would not have to affect the rest of
Firefox.
I think many people would find it absolutely unacceptable if a "free
speech" version of Firefox would miss proper support for a core
feature
of the "official" mozilla.org binary (if the free and the official
version diverge at what content they can display something is serious
messed up).
Well, the official EULA for the Firefox download already prevents
certain forms of modification, but granted the logo, name and so
forth are not core features.
Regards,
Maciej
