OSI President Questions WebM Patent License Compatibility with Open Source 37
Via the H comes a report that the Simon Phipps, current President of the Open Source Initiative, thinks that the VP8 patent Cross-license agreeement Google brokered with the MPEG-LA is incompatible with the Open Source definition. The primary problems are that the license is not sub-licensable and only covers certain uses, leading to conflict with OSD clauses five, six, and seven. Phipps concludes: "As a consequence, I suggest the license is flawed when considered in relation to open source projects and is likely to be negatively received by many communities that value software freedom. Doubtless a case can be made that the patent license is optional, but I suspect the community issues may remain. Once again we're left with our fingers crossed. Google's making the right noises, but this draft agreement seems like a particularly unworkable approach for free and open source software. Its failure to allow sublicensing seems like a major flaw. Even if this doesn't result in a requirement for all end-users to sign the agreement, the discrepancies between this document and the OSD leave it disruptive to open source adoption of VP8."
Re:Open Source Opposes Innovation (Score:0, Insightful)
Yawn. 1/10, jimmies un-rustled.
Your troll material is derivative and you lay it on too thick. You open with founding fathers? That's a red flag. You blew your load too early. A good troll draws the reader in with a plausible premise, then jabs the knife of absurdity once interest is caught and defenses lowered.
Too little, too late (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go with what you can get. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing we wanted was a competitor that was FOSS compatible. If WebM is not that it has no use at all. Might as well stick with h264 in that case.
Re:Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
No one uses WebM. Google dropped the ball. Now even Mozilla is allowing their browser to use the underlying OS to support H.264 playback. This ship has sailed. Better luck next time.
The very presence of VP8/VP9 means that the license terms for H.264/H.265 can't become too unreasonable. If they do then there is an alternative. If there is no alternative then MPEGLA can jack the license fees up as much as they wish.
Re:Too little, too late (Score:4, Insightful)
The fees aren't what's important. It's the licensing terms and rules they seek to impose as a condition of access. The goal isn't money, it's using the rights granted by patent protection as a club to control others.
H.264 Has 30 Licensors. 1,229 Licensees. (Score:4, Insightful)
Did anyone really expect the MPEG-LA to offer license terms that were amenable to FOSS goals? That would eliminate their ability to exert and enforce control over the market.
WebM is a distribution codec for the web.
The MPEG LA licensors are a global R&D and manufacturing combine of breathtaking size, scope and power. The licensees are built on the same scale. MPEG LA [mpegla.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)