[Per Olofsson] > This argument assumes that there are valid patents on H.264 held by > the MPEG-LA. According to <http://www.debian.org/legal/patent>, > Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by > patents. Since Debian is distributing H.264 encoders and decoders, > that must mean that we are not aware of any patents. If you are > aware of patents on H.264, then you should probably discuss it with > pate...@debian.org and not publicly.
Actually, you are the one claiming Debian distribute programs supporting H.264. I do not know if that is true. I avoid using H.264 files. I am just pointing out issues I see with providing H.264 support in Debian. If you believe these to be non-issues, I can understand your arguments, but I fail to see that it is reasonable to believe MPEG-LA have no valid patent to base their considerable income on. :) > In any case, if you don't think Iceweasel should support H.264, then > why support H.264 through a Flash plugin in default installs? Why > should some software in Debian support H.264 but not Iceweasel's > <video> tag? Seems inconsistent to me. I have not argued here for H.264 support anywhere in Debian, not even in Flash. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org