I don't really have a problem with non-free game art. If the source code is available you will be able to play the game as long as there is someone to adjust things for newer systems, and playability is the main utility of a game. Furthermore, additions generally get a free pass, so even a game with non-free assets can evolve.
The webapp might be free, but if it's selling stuff and runs full screen they want their 30%. It's targeting the likes of Amazon who are rolling out a webapp version of their reader and will probably use it to avoid Apple's iTax among other things.
So whilst your paying customers are using omnidirectional antennas radiating 40kW equally poorly in all directions, the Canadian Ham is pointing the equivalent of 15kW directly where he wants to put it.
If Firefox was officially supported on Windows 3.11, then the consistency argument would dictate that it can still play the same videos as Firefox on Windows 6.1^H^H^H7.
Nokia and Apple were both happy to sitting in their VIP club of the H.264 patent pool (with Microsoft content to just wait things out). Mozilla can't ship with H.264 and using system codecs compromises cross platform consistency on top of the implementation and maintenance problems. Furthermore it is mystery to me why people expected them to compromise on their core principle of web openness that got them where they are (remember the "take back the web" champaign?). Opera couldn't possibly afford H.264 (underlying the need for an open web for competition to flourish).
Google was in the uneasy position of not being in the VIP club, benefiting from browser competition and paying through the nose for the privilege to use H.264 on the biggest video site on the web. Whether Theora didn't fit their projected needs (i.e. HD video, their as of then current SD was demonstrated to be compressed so badly with H.264 that Theora could match it at the bitrate) or if they had their eye On2 even back is unclear. What is clear is that they were never hostile to having a Free codec widely deployed with HTML5, if they were dead keen on H.264 as you suggest they would have never shipped Chrome Theora enabled. At most they were resigned to use it on Youtube. Either way at some point they cut the Gordian knot by acquiring On2 to release VP8 as fully Free software (claims to the contrary notwithstanding).
WebM doesn't have to be better, just good enough (and Theora was good enough for current web video scenarios anyway). Unsubstantiated patent FUD is just that. As for openness... the format is as open as PNG, SVG or even TCP/IP given the constraints it has to work under, just (as of now) not standardized with any of the usual suspects. That is it was developed essentially by one entity and opened for general use. This new definition of what an open format is is as new as WebM itself, no one argued that Vorbis or Speex aren't open just because they were not developed with an inclusive process. Neither is standardized either, yet few (if any) were saying that a specification with a canonical BSD implementation made it proprietary.
Are there actually any reliable numbers on Flash video codecs? Or is assuming that everyone transcoded their VP6 content some sort of evidence? And if do, it would only show that migration Nevermind, if switching from VP6 was acceptable so is switching again to a new format is a feasible option.
Consistency. There is nothing to explain beyond the fact that Firefox is striving to be a turnkey browser, they do their own rendering and UI FFS, why do people expect them to suddenly add system specific dependencies?
Like W3C, we are talking about the web here, not about the "you don't have a license to use videos taken with your camera"-open of ISO.
Wait, did you just say that open standards are worse off because they involve open collaboration?
For one it's 'open' collaboration in the same way that the cell phone providers compete in a 'free' market. That is your are welcome if you are a big player with deep pockets. For another, there are ways in which it is worse of yes, H.264 is a pig of a standard instead of a group of related ones, at least in part, so that the big players can stuff as many of their own patents in as they can, then you have to pay (through MPEG LA) for 3D video patents when all you want is to make a Baseline decoder.
Compare WebM with H.264, or if you want a more open source comparison, Theora.
WTF doesn't "more open source" mean? In the end it's just a souped up VP3, they have the same history. If you want to compare open source to closed, then compare x264 to anything the collaborators have come up. Apparently the ability to make a high quality encoder is a side effect of the collaboration since they can't be arsed to actually do it.
If you want to compare the patent constrained efforts of free format creators why don't you also compare, for example, Vorbis, Musepack, FLAC, Speex, CELT, PNG and 7zip to their respective competitors?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really have a problem with non-free game art. If the source code is available you will be able to play the game as long as there is someone to adjust things for newer systems, and playability is the main utility of a game. Furthermore, additions generally get a free pass, so even a game with non-free assets can evolve.
And what exactly prevents you from adding encryption at the proxy instead of the servers?
Falsifiable the basis of one being testimony who, furthermore, could or could not be what they claim? That doesn't sound like science to me?
If the rest of "GreatAmericanNovel.hpp" describes an API and the comments are stripped, what creative work is left?
But everyone would be free to copy, modify and disassemble the proprietary product as well.
The webapp might be free, but if it's selling stuff and runs full screen they want their 30%. It's targeting the likes of Amazon who are rolling out a webapp version of their reader and will probably use it to avoid Apple's iTax among other things.
There is a perfectly valid reason for this, it's much easier to hold on to very thin things!
+50C? Did you work on the Mars Climate Orbiter by any chance?
Care to step outside of Earth's magnetic field for a year or two?
"Just talking to Brazil!"
Good to see someone who understands that money isn't the end output of any economic activity.
Steamboat Willie has only been resurrected to act as a trademark when the copyright expired...
Microsoft v. TomTom.
The clock would start ticking at the time of publication, not creation.
CD have more then enough dynamic range, it's just that it is hardly ever used.
There's a more efficient way to spend your R&D budget: rehashing antenna designs known to suck.
If Firefox was officially supported on Windows 3.11, then the consistency argument would dictate that it can still play the same videos as Firefox on Windows 6.1^H^H^H7.
What does Mozilla know about developing a cross platform web browser anyway?
Nokia and Apple were both happy to sitting in their VIP club of the H.264 patent pool (with Microsoft content to just wait things out). Mozilla can't ship with H.264 and using system codecs compromises cross platform consistency on top of the implementation and maintenance problems. Furthermore it is mystery to me why people expected them to compromise on their core principle of web openness that got them where they are (remember the "take back the web" champaign?). Opera couldn't possibly afford H.264 (underlying the need for an open web for competition to flourish).
Google was in the uneasy position of not being in the VIP club, benefiting from browser competition and paying through the nose for the privilege to use H.264 on the biggest video site on the web. Whether Theora didn't fit their projected needs (i.e. HD video, their as of then current SD was demonstrated to be compressed so badly with H.264 that Theora could match it at the bitrate) or if they had their eye On2 even back is unclear. What is clear is that they were never hostile to having a Free codec widely deployed with HTML5, if they were dead keen on H.264 as you suggest they would have never shipped Chrome Theora enabled. At most they were resigned to use it on Youtube. Either way at some point they cut the Gordian knot by acquiring On2 to release VP8 as fully Free software (claims to the contrary notwithstanding).
WebM doesn't have to be better, just good enough (and Theora was good enough for current web video scenarios anyway). Unsubstantiated patent FUD is just that. As for openness... the format is as open as PNG, SVG or even TCP/IP given the constraints it has to work under, just (as of now) not standardized with any of the usual suspects. That is it was developed essentially by one entity and opened for general use. This new definition of what an open format is is as new as WebM itself, no one argued that Vorbis or Speex aren't open just because they were not developed with an inclusive process. Neither is standardized either, yet few (if any) were saying that a specification with a canonical BSD implementation made it proprietary.
Are there actually any reliable numbers on Flash video codecs? Or is assuming that everyone transcoded their VP6 content some sort of evidence? And if do, it would only show that migration Nevermind, if switching from VP6 was acceptable so is switching again to a new format is a feasible option.
Consistency. There is nothing to explain beyond the fact that Firefox is striving to be a turnkey browser, they do their own rendering and UI FFS, why do people expect them to suddenly add system specific dependencies?
Nothing, gotcha.
What does that have to do with patent risks of WebM?
Like W3C, we are talking about the web here, not about the "you don't have a license to use videos taken with your camera"-open of ISO.
For one it's 'open' collaboration in the same way that the cell phone providers compete in a 'free' market. That is your are welcome if you are a big player with deep pockets. For another, there are ways in which it is worse of yes, H.264 is a pig of a standard instead of a group of related ones, at least in part, so that the big players can stuff as many of their own patents in as they can, then you have to pay (through MPEG LA) for 3D video patents when all you want is to make a Baseline decoder.
WTF doesn't "more open source" mean? In the end it's just a souped up VP3, they have the same history. If you want to compare open source to closed, then compare x264 to anything the collaborators have come up. Apparently the ability to make a high quality encoder is a side effect of the collaboration since they can't be arsed to actually do it.
If you want to compare the patent constrained efforts of free format creators why don't you also compare, for example, Vorbis, Musepack, FLAC, Speex, CELT, PNG and 7zip to their respective competitors?