Chrome supports H.264 out of the box now, not in some future version. Chromium will always support H.264 if you are willing to do the work. The choice remains, but only one side is slammed by a large number of hypocrites.
This isn't about GPLv3, additional restrictions can't be added to GPLv2. So if a GPLv2 implementation would honestly state the restriction that actually exist on doing anything with the code, it would still not be compatible with anything else. Hence the issue is kinda swept under the rug, that doesn't change that the code can't legally be used with all of the freedoms granted by GPLv2.
That is bullshit, you absolutely have to pay to distribute binary decoders on any scale. Then again, I'm sure you can pull a source out of where-ever you pulled that claim. And that is all without even going into the fact that openness on all sides is important for competition to flourish.
The specifications are fully open for anyone to -freely- implement both coding and decoding for.
Distributing the binary or even actually doing the encoding/decoding however is illegal in places that recognize the relevant patents. Free-ly, but not Free.
Bullshit, the FSF doesn't mandate what you can do any more then anyone else using the same license. Advocacy and philosophy is not a mandate, claiming so is a shitty way of attacking them without actually having an argument.
You are free to not choose freedom, but describing the resulting situation as freedom is not intellectually honest. When you use FLOSS you have the freedom to use it for any purpose (even if FSF strongly recommends to use only FLOSS altogether), including forfeiting some of it to run it along-side or directly combined with it proprietary software (if not distributed), many licenses even let you restrict your direct downstream.
As a result you (or your downstream) might loosed the choice how and what for to use the software, the choice to make modifications and the choice to redistribute.
Now why you believe that FLOSS developers have any duty to make thiythiyosos easy for you I don't know. The freedom is well understood to rest in the ability to use, modify and redistribute (possibly modified) copies, your choice of adding H.264 to Chromium has not been restricted, it just became somewhat harder to do so.
Yet, you are not free to make an open implementation, you are absolutely not permitted to re-distribute binary copies of said implementation or use it for any purpose. You are free to make closed implementations and source code, use restricted implementations (even though this is, as a rule not actually explicitly specified in the license because the developers want to remain GPL compatible). True FLOSS implementations are not possible in countries that recognize any of the relevant patents.
You are making demands without paying for the product, their precise scope is outside of that argument. It's not your wishlist that I was criticizing in this particular case. It's the *you have to do this* tone.
I do have the same complaints against MS and Apple browsers
So why don't you protest their lack of WebM? And that goes for all of you Mozilla (and now Google) critics, you don't seem to want choice, you seem to want to force H.264, but complain that Mozilla and Google are pushing right back. What is that I hear, its a business decision? It is for Mozilla, Opera and Google as well, fuck this attitude that only short term gains and CYA maximization are legitimate choices.
I want quality videos and the browser makers should all either pay up to directly include h.264 support in their browser or allow their browser to use an installed system h.264 codec for videos.
That's the spirit! Vote with your wallet, buy a browser that fulfills your needs!
as soon as webm gets any kind of market share whatsoever, MPEG-LA will make good on their statement (threat) that no video codec can be developed without infringing one of their patents.
Just as they followed through with their FUD on vorbis. But hey, video games are still fringe, right?
Without proof, I can't come to the conclusion that Google are honest simpletons - especially given so much evidence to the contrary.
What evidence? You have speculation that they might have wanted random snippets of (let's be honest) crap. Or alternatively, that they'd stick their neck out to "stimulate debate" (to what end?).
You really believe the government ordered banks and credit agencies to misuse SSN in the way they have?
Even more importantly if you believe the divide is shaky (and, generally, I can see why) you should be a lot more concerned about the non-transparent databases that credit agencies have then government ones created by public legislation. The US focuses so much on what government can directly do, that you forget that nothing prevents the government from buying the data they aren't permitted to collect on the open market. I'm not even going into how companies can misuses said databases (most people don't even seem to care...).
They were not an accused party when they came clear and probably would never have been if they'd just wiped the disks instead of doing the right thing.
Someone could just sit back, send out a digital signature on a message that says, "Transfer $100k to this account," and walk away with the money -- no fingerprints, no need to show their face at a bank or post office, nothing.
Or they could call the bank up with your last four and your mom's maiden name. I'll take well implemented crypto any day.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't paying for the product in question, you have the luxury to ask, your tone is of a demand.
Chrome supports H.264 out of the box now, not in some future version. Chromium will always support H.264 if you are willing to do the work. The choice remains, but only one side is slammed by a large number of hypocrites.
This isn't about GPLv3, additional restrictions can't be added to GPLv2. So if a GPLv2 implementation would honestly state the restriction that actually exist on doing anything with the code, it would still not be compatible with anything else. Hence the issue is kinda swept under the rug, that doesn't change that the code can't legally be used with all of the freedoms granted by GPLv2.
That is bullshit, you absolutely have to pay to distribute binary decoders on any scale. Then again, I'm sure you can pull a source out of where-ever you pulled that claim. And that is all without even going into the fact that openness on all sides is important for competition to flourish.
Distributing the binary or even actually doing the encoding/decoding however is illegal in places that recognize the relevant patents. Free-ly, but not Free.
The problem is that Google is giving exactly the same assurances as MPEG LA?
You are free to buy in and it's open to anyone who wants to? So yeah, not open as in open source.
Bullshit, the FSF doesn't mandate what you can do any more then anyone else using the same license. Advocacy and philosophy is not a mandate, claiming so is a shitty way of attacking them without actually having an argument.
You are free to not choose freedom, but describing the resulting situation as freedom is not intellectually honest. When you use FLOSS you have the freedom to use it for any purpose (even if FSF strongly recommends to use only FLOSS altogether), including forfeiting some of it to run it along-side or directly combined with it proprietary software (if not distributed), many licenses even let you restrict your direct downstream.
As a result you (or your downstream) might loosed the choice how and what for to use the software, the choice to make modifications and the choice to redistribute.
Now why you believe that FLOSS developers have any duty to make thiythiyosos easy for you I don't know. The freedom is well understood to rest in the ability to use, modify and redistribute (possibly modified) copies, your choice of adding H.264 to Chromium has not been restricted, it just became somewhat harder to do so.
Yet, you are not free to make an open implementation, you are absolutely not permitted to re-distribute binary copies of said implementation or use it for any purpose. You are free to make closed implementations and source code, use restricted implementations (even though this is, as a rule not actually explicitly specified in the license because the developers want to remain GPL compatible). True FLOSS implementations are not possible in countries that recognize any of the relevant patents.
Because you are telling them what they should do.
You are making demands without paying for the product, their precise scope is outside of that argument. It's not your wishlist that I was criticizing in this particular case. It's the *you have to do this* tone.
And Chromium and Firefox support H.264 if you hack it in, that's even choicyer... Defaults is what matters. (Safari uses system codecs as well).
So why don't you protest their lack of WebM? And that goes for all of you Mozilla (and now Google) critics, you don't seem to want choice, you seem to want to force H.264, but complain that Mozilla and Google are pushing right back. What is that I hear, its a business decision? It is for Mozilla, Opera and Google as well, fuck this attitude that only short term gains and CYA maximization are legitimate choices.
That's the spirit! Vote with your wallet, buy a browser that fulfills your needs!
Just as they followed through with their FUD on vorbis. But hey, video games are still fringe, right?
The timing is suggestive, any earlier revelations about Apples unwillingness to use DRM?
This is actually quite common... There are large number of virtual librarians and collectors among pirates, particularly people who pirate a lot.
I can't agree, ABBYY is pretty darn good as far as such things go.
Secret to the general public.
What evidence? You have speculation that they might have wanted random snippets of (let's be honest) crap. Or alternatively, that they'd stick their neck out to "stimulate debate" (to what end?).
You really believe the government ordered banks and credit agencies to misuse SSN in the way they have?
Even more importantly if you believe the divide is shaky (and, generally, I can see why) you should be a lot more concerned about the non-transparent databases that credit agencies have then government ones created by public legislation. The US focuses so much on what government can directly do, that you forget that nothing prevents the government from buying the data they aren't permitted to collect on the open market. I'm not even going into how companies can misuses said databases (most people don't even seem to care...).
And naturally some idiots blame this development on the government, not the credit agencies and banks. Weird, huh?
I don't thing government encouraged SSNs to become the username+password that they are...
They were not an accused party when they came clear and probably would never have been if they'd just wiped the disks instead of doing the right thing.
Or they could call the bank up with your last four and your mom's maiden name. I'll take well implemented crypto any day.