"what really irks me about this WebM debate isn't that there's a legitimate competitor to H264--competition is always a good thing, and I welcome another codec to the fold. What bothers me is that we would let bogus metrics and faulty data presentation dominate the debate. At this point, I see no indication that VP8 is even remotely on par with a good implementation of H264--perhaps it can be sold on other merits, but quality simply isn't one of them. This could change as the VP8 implementation improves, but even the standard itself is roughly equivalent to baseline profile of H264.
Putting that whole debate aside and returning to the notion of a high definition video standard, using these methods--and in particular, a box plot--one can establish that a video at least meets some baseline requirement with regard to encoder quality. The blu-ray shots above are a pretty clear indication that this industry needs such a standard. More importantly, consumers deserve it--it's not right for people to shell out cash for some poorly-encoded, overly-quantized, PSNR-optimized mess."
Link to Original Source
We can argue symantecs till the end of time but isn't a patented, open-source piece of software an oxymoron? I mean I am not exactly jumping for joy and screaming yay that I can use it because I might have the patent trolls jump all over me.
No, it's not even remotely an "oxymoron"; open source isn't about giving up your property rights. It's about _respecting_ property rights. This is why open source projects _include a license_, and that license stipulates how people may use the project in detail. How is me requiring people open source projects that use my property any different than me requesting they pay me to use my property? In either scenario, I am putting forth the stipulations for use. If you're against paying to use property, so be it, but don't make the mistake of thinking open source code is devoid of property rights.