If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You will have to register
before you can post. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Please do not use the CODE tag when pasting content that contains formatting (colored, bold, underline, italic, etc).
The CODE tag displays all content as plain text, including the formatting tags, making it difficult to read.
The following Topic Prefixes are designated for use in Community Cafe:
DS (Distribution Showdown)
GN (Geek News)
KLD (Kubuntu or Linux Discussion)
TWC (The Water Cooler)
KUT (Kubuntu User Testimony)
NRD (Next Release Discussion)
While use is not required, doing so allows for efficient Filtering.
I found this very interesting, and informative ... I had no idea:
That H.264 is patent-encumbered? Neither did I. Video codecs is a messy business already, and I am a bit confused about what is actually patented even after reading the Wikipedia article.
Mozilla and Firefox continue to stand with the web on this topic. We don’t think that fundamental web technologies should be encumbered with patents and our actions and messages reflect that.
As explained in the first article, the problem is not today's relatively liberal licensing terms for H.264, it is the potential "surprise" new terms once H.264 attains something like "mandatory" status for 'net streaming content transfers.
Comment