Some more sophisticated analysis from the author in the comment thread:
"I did read the Ars article, which similarly voices the "free codec is good, international standards body specifications are evil" thing everyone has been repeating.
The bottom line is that x264 is GPL so the whole "Linux users can't use H.264 video" is simply wrong, and in the big picture Mozilla and Opera don't really matter. Once Chrome starts gaining traction, do you really think Google will see any need to dump $50 million on the remains of Netscape's ashes? And what purpose does Opera serve other than to make the EU feel like it has some say in the browser market?"
Sounds like someone pissed in his cheerios. Bloody fanboys.
It isn't about the implementation's license, it's about patents. H.264 is patented while Theora is not. This makes it illegal for anybody to distribute H.264 decoding software, whether open source or not, until they've paid for the patent license.
FooBarWidget: "This makes it illegal for anybody to distribute H.264 decoding software, whether open source or not, until they've paid for the patent license."
Only within the jurisdictions in which the patent is valid and in force (renewal fees paid).
Comments
Some more sophisticated analysis from the author in the comment thread:
"I did read the Ars article, which similarly voices the "free codec is good, international standards body specifications are evil" thing everyone has been repeating.
The bottom line is that x264 is GPL so the whole "Linux users can't use H.264 video" is simply wrong, and in the big picture Mozilla and Opera don't really matter. Once Chrome starts gaining traction, do you really think Google will see any need to dump $50 million on the remains of Netscape's ashes? And what purpose does Opera serve other than to make the EU feel like it has some say in the browser market?"
Sounds like someone pissed in his cheerios. Bloody fanboys.
It isn't about the implementation's license, it's about patents. H.264 is patented while Theora is not. This makes it illegal for anybody to distribute H.264 decoding software, whether open source or not, until they've paid for the patent license.
FooBarWidget: "This makes it illegal for anybody to distribute H.264 decoding software, whether open source or not, until they've paid for the patent license."
Only within the jurisdictions in which the patent is valid and in force (renewal fees paid).
Patents limit distribution of the 'machine', and are intended to make the 'plans' describing how to build it a matter of public record.
Distributing the source code does not infringe the patent.