<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Robert Sayre <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sayrer@gmail.com">sayrer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">I</div>
wrote about the practice of shipping encumbered software and calling<br>
it "open".</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Where is the language where Google is calling H.264 "open"?</div><div><br></div><div>The closest I know of is "Google Chrome is made possible by the Chromium open source project and other open source software" (from Tools->About Google Chrome), which links to a page containing links to the FFMPEG homepage and license. I don't see that as saying what it sounds like you claim something somewhere is saying?</div>
<div><br></div><div>In the end I personally view hostility towards patent-encumbered video formats the same way I view hostility toward non-GPL "free software" licenses: a stance I understand, but not one I agree with. More importantly for this thread in particular, I'm not sure what the purpose of stating that opposition here is. I thought the purpose of this thread was to resolve questions people had about the use of FFMPEG vis-a-vis its license. This is probably going to be an ineffective forum if your hope is to dissuade Google from shipping H.264 support.</div>
<div><br></div><div>PK</div></div>