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 quality in their codecs/megabyte/second. So long as > this is true this issue will not be resolvable cleanly and the kind of > puritism that Robert mentioned is achievable only upon expiration of > said patents or dramatic quality improvements of the free codecs. > > You can claim Humians as much as you like, the rest of us are trying > to ship software here. Historically a lot of the Web standards community, even many people at large for-profit companies, have felt it very important that Web standards be usable royalty-free. There were big battles when that situation was threatened in the past. I personally care about it just as much as "shipping software". In that context, helping make H.264 an essential part of "the open Web" is reprehensible. If your only goal is to ship software with the best bitrate/quality tradeoff, OK, but you can't complain when you get flak. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
