[whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

[Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)]

If you need to pay ¢1 for copies distributed, then it isn't royalty free and 
it can't be on the standard as a requirement.  Flat fee is not royalty free.

YES, I MEANT BEING ABLE TO USE IT WITHOUT PAYING ANY KIND OF FEE.

Am I too daft for my words to be understood?

El Lunes 07 Ene 2008, escribió:
> On Jan 7, 2008 7:36 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com> wrote:
> > Out of the question, it must be royalty-free.  That's one of the
> > requirements, so unless you can convince the holder to go RF, no chance.
>
> Did you even read what I wrote?
>
> >>RAD doesn't charge royalties - period. You pay one flat-fee to use Bink
> >>or Smacker in your product.
>
> If you mean being able to use it without paying _any kind_ of fee,
> that's another thing.
>
> Royalty: a sum of money paid to a patentee for the use of a patent or
> to an author or composer for _each_ copy of a book sold or for _each_
> public performance of a work.
>
> And about your last sentence.. As I said:
> >>It might be worth trying to contact RAD and see if this could be a
>
> walkable road.
>
> -- Federico BP



-- 

	Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com>
	Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
	GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Sonique - It feels so good
Your boss is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080107/01b53550/attachment-0001.pgp>