Re: [tlug] Open Codecs (was Re: [CoLoCo] RESPECT MICROSOFT)

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 21/08/07, Niels Kobschätzki <n.kobschaetzki@example.com> wrote:

> On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Josh Glover wrote:
>
> > On 20/08/07, Niels Kobschätzki <n.kobschaetzki@example.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, isn't free as in speech more important here?
>
> Why?
> I know that a codec that is free as in beer doesn't need to be free
> as in speech - would it work the other way around? (a free-as-in-
> speech-codec I have to license before I can use it as a *user*)

No. An example of this is the MP3 codec:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues

> How about h.264?

No, as per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Open_Source.2FFree_Software_licensing

But Google would have told you this pretty quickly, no? :)

-- 
Cheers,
Josh