Florian Weimer schrieb:
> * Maik Merten:
>
>> gives clear semantics: It's an image.
>
> Animated GIF, anyone?
Still an image as the usual GIF animations aren't exactly qualifying as
true "films".
>> gives clear semantics: Video.
>
> Just because something is labled as "video", it's semantic
Le samedi 24 mars 2007 à 09:29 +1100, Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
> On 3/24/07, Maik Merten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ignoring patents can be dangerous, though. If you get sued and the suing
> > party can prove you knew of those patents you can get punished even
> > harder AFAIK (IANAL!). In ca
* Maik Merten:
> gives clear semantics: It's an image.
Animated GIF, anyone?
> gives clear semantics: Video.
Does it begin to run automatically? Can be paused? Saved? What
happens if there are two videos on the same page? Are they
synchronized? Which one gets to play the audio? Is there
Holger Levsen schrieb:
> First of all, thanks to Maik for bringing this up here!
Well, I'm a user of free software so this topic is in my very interest ;)
I totally missed you already brought this to the project mailing list -
I fired another mail to debian-project before noticing that. Sorry for
Hi,
added -project to to: as its more appropriate there :)
On Friday 23 March 2007 18:26, Steve Greenland wrote:
> That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4
> support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed,
> again. If we (the Free Software community)
Sam Morris schrieb:
> I thought that HTML was going in the other direction--deprecating
> in favour of the already-existing and perfectly logical .
>
> I really can't see what the point of this tag is in the first
> place.
Over at WHATWG it seems most people thinkg is badly broken in
basically
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:39:34PM +, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:26 +0100, Maik Merten wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
> > > Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag is completely
> > > orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or no
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:26 +0100, Maik Merten wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
> > Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag is completely
> > orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support
> > it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
> Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag is completely
> orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support
> it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent
> tag or whatever internally...
The tag is supposed to offe
On 3/24/07, Maik Merten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taken that e.g. Mozilla and the KHTML team aren't able to build browsers
with integrated (that's what is for: Video without plugins)
MPEG4 support without the appended patent licenses restricting the
freedom of distribution it's worth to try to
Sam Morris schrieb:
> It's probably more accurate to say that no matter what the standard says,
> Microsoft will ignore it and only implement Windows Media formats, which
> everyone will use, and we'll be screwed. :(
Microsoft is not part of WHATWG. Having a free video format in browsers
like Fi
Andrew Donnellan schrieb:
> But are the MPEG patentors *likely* to sue Debian?
>
> If Debian was sued over the MPEG patents, imagine what Slashdot and
> Digg would do to them - it wouldn't be great PR.
In case of MP3 one of the patent holders *did* take action against
"free" MP3 encoders (the Fra
I demand that Sam Morris may or may not have written...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:26:25 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4
>> support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed,
> It's probably more accurate to say th
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:26:25 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4
> support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed,
It's probably more accurate to say that no matter what the standard says,
Microsoft will ignore it
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:43:52PM +0100, Maik Merten wrote:
> Romain Beauxis schrieb:
> > I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that
> > claims
> > that some algorithm you designed were "owned" by it.. Have you ever looked
> > at
> > the JPEG processing for example
On 3/24/07, Maik Merten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ignoring patents can be dangerous, though. If you get sued and the suing
party can prove you knew of those patents you can get punished even
harder AFAIK (IANAL!). In case of Debian vs. MPEG they could simply
point to the mailing lists where the
Steve Greenland schrieb:
> That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4
> support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed,
> again. If we (the Free Software community) can get Ogg-Theora listed as
> the base requirement (or recommendation), then we have a sm
On 23-Mar-07, 11:54 (CDT), Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your second paragraph above doesn't follow from your first. Even if the
> standard for says to use MPEG4, I assume that it will follow the
> same model as the rest of HTTP and the video will be a separate object
> with its own
Maik Merten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Recently Apple joined the discussion and questioned if the Ogg formats
> should get such a recommendation (
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html
> ). The following discussion implies Apple wants to see MPEG4 being us
Josselin Mouette schrieb:
> Thanks for these precisions.
I'm glad I could help to shed some light on that.
> I am still convinced that we should ignore patents entirely, but this
> isn't a consensus in the project, so the issues with h.264 remain the
> same as those of DivX et al.
Yeah, sadly it
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 16:16 +0100, Maik Merten a écrit :
> Yeah, he might be referring to the Qualcomm case. Qualcomm sued Broadcom
> for patent infringement and lost.
>
> It seems the court also recommended invalidating that patent.
>
> Now, that's one special patent that was questioned her
Romain Beauxis schrieb:
> I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that claims
> that some algorithm you designed were "owned" by it.. Have you ever looked at
> the JPEG processing for example ? It is simply a fourier transform followed
> by an huffman compression... All
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 16:10, Maik Merten a écrit :
> If somehow possible the WHATWG should adopt a free format and I think
> it's in the best interest of Debian to bringing this to the WHATWG's
> attention.
I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that claims
that some
Maik Merten schrieb:
> If you ship more than 50.000 decoders (easily bypassed by some Linux
> distributions) they'll charge you 0.25$ per decoder. If you happen to
> ship more than 50.000 encoders: Again, 0.25$.
>
> They even charge for encoded content.
>
> ( Taken from http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/
Reinhard Tartler schrieb:
> Maybe he is referring to [1] (found via [2])?
>
> [1]
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070127--1b27verdict.html
> [2]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
Yeah, he might be referring to the Qualcomm case. Qualcomm sued Broadcom
for patent infringeme
Romain Beauxis schrieb:
> This always the same story..
> Patents are registered 'a priori', and owning a patent does not implies that
> it is justified in any ways. Patents must be treated as a threat, not a legal
> binding that will enforced by the law.
Patents that were granted are a valid ba
Maik Merten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette schrieb:
>> Maybe it would be a good idea to push h.264 now the related patents have
>> been invalidated. It provides a much better compression level than Ogg
>> Theora.
>
> I didn't hear anything of H.264 related patents having been inval
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 14:46, Maik Merten a écrit :
> Romain Beauxis schrieb:
> > Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive..
> > I think you are missunderstanding his point, because a patent is not
> > directly related to the freeness of the code.
> > If we were to remove all software that
Romain Beauxis schrieb:
> Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive..
> I think you are missunderstanding his point, because a patent is not directly
> related to the freeness of the code.
> If we were to remove all software that is subject ot patent threats, we would
> remove most of our a
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 14:11, Maik Merten a écrit :
> > Fortunately not. We have free MPEG-4 decoders, thanks.
>
> I don't consider this to be true.
>
> Can you give a source supporting your theory?
Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive..
I think you are missunderstanding his point, bec
Josselin Mouette schrieb:
> Maybe it would be a good idea to push h.264 now the related patents have
> been invalidated. It provides a much better compression level than Ogg
> Theora.
I didn't hear anything of H.264 related patents having been invalidated
(by what court? In what country?). To my k
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 12:41 +0100, Maik Merten a écrit :
> | User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as
> | well as the Ogg container format. [THEORA] [VORBIS] [OGG]"
>
> This basically means the free Ogg formats, which are included in Debian
> already, form a basic
Hi,
I'm new to this list, so hello. I'm not a Debian developer, but I think
I should bring something to your attention that may impact badly on Debian.
The WHATWG ( http://www.whatwg.org/ - that's mostly Apple, Opera and
Mozilla) are currently discussing an extension to HTML - the
element. The b
33 matches
Mail list logo
