[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome
sayrer at gmail.com
Sun Jun 7 18:41:31 PDT 2009
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Chris DiBona<cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm okay with Flak, and I really do believe in shipping
> free/unemcumbered software (see our lgpl discussion earlier). That
> said, I dislike when I'm accused of being reprehensible by another
> browser vendor.
This line of argument is incorrect in a couple of ways. Firstly, it is
an ad hominem argument, stating that my employer makes my statement
somehow unacceptable. Secondly, I didn't say anything about /you/. I
wrote about the practice of shipping encumbered software and calling
> It seems unfairly nasty to me.
What is unfair or nasty about it?
> That said, I feel like I've been threadjacking this list for too long
> now, and for that I apologize, it seems like we're gong down a codec
> rathole that may or may not have any relevance for the spec in the
Actually, the spec used to mention Ogg specifically.
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
More information about the whatwg