Google Announces WebM Community Cross Licensing 120
theweatherelectric writes "Google's WebM project has announced the formation of the WebM Community Cross-License Initiative. Members of the WebM-CCL agree to license patents they may hold that are essential to WebM technologies to other members under royalty-free terms. This initiative would seem to address some of Microsoft's concerns about WebM. Meanwhile, the MPEG LA appears to have remained silent after the submission period of its call for patents essential to WebM ended over a month ago."
Wait there ARE patents with WebM? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know... you can't take a step in any direction without infringing on some software patent somewhere, so it can't be expected that there aren't patents that cover some aspect of video "on the internet." But this consortium that requires membership? Hrm... I guess it's part of how we all agree "not to sue each other" analogous to peace accords and treaties.
And MPEG-LA remained silent? Of course they did! If they spoke up, they wouldn't be able to file law suits later! It's what they exist for, after all. Why would anyone expect MPEG-LA to speak up and act against their very purpose for existence? No one has to be insightful or prophetic to predict that if/when WebM becomes the defacto standard, MPEG-LA will file suits.
MPEG is trouble (Score:3, Insightful)
When it happens, we won't be able to say that we weren't warned.
(Oh, but where's the trust!)
At some point, it's just bashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think any global company in the history of the world has done more for open source and open standards as Google. Comparing apples to apples, and throwing out quality, streamability, and all the technical standards, who do you REALLY trust with backing up an open codec?
Microsoft, Apple, or Google?
Who profits most from open protocols? Who profits most from DRM? The distinction is clear, and MS or Apple bashing Google is just laughable at this point. They are the ones who for years profited from DRM while Google profited from linking to open sites and content.
Re:Apple, Apple, fap, fap, fap, Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you still not understand this? Flash is not part of Android. It is not part of the Android browser. It is an app in the market. It is really that simple.
Do some phones ship with flash? Sure. Mine didn't, but some do. Mine also shipped with the Facebook app. The Facebook app isn't open.
Is anyone complaining? No. Do you know why? Because both Android and iPhone have Facebook apps, but only Android has flash, so immature iPhone users run around like headless chickens going on and on about this big "open" paradox within Android.
I will explain it one more time. Android is open source. It is open, it is free, you can downlod it with git and RMS would roll around in the source code without feeling dirty.
Android is the operating system, but it allows you to install apps. Those apps may be open or closed. Anyone is able to make apps for it. If an app is popular, it might come preinstalled on the phone. If an app is very popular, Google might even happily announce that it is available.
Adobe is not Google, and Flash is not a Google product. It is simply an Adobe app that Adobe has made available for use on Android phones.
I think I covered everything here, but I await your "Google SAYS Android is open, yet there is this whole FLASH issue that needs to be considered" retort.