Comment Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score 1) 413
You, on the other hand, are an apologist for the inferior WebM codec, simply because it's ideologically compatible with you.
Hell, yeah! Is there something wrong to base my decision to endorse Google based on moral reasoning? I stopped buying Nike shoes back in 90ies on moral reasoning. If I’d ever buy a diamond, I would make sure it isn’t a bloody one. Why would it be any difference with my video codec? I do my work with Corel Draw and make a fair amount of money with it. If Corel would try to pick a percentage of my profit, I’d ditch Draw. With is different, winner of this dispute gets a legal monopoly on web video for the rest of it’s life and I don’t want MPEG-LA racketeering video production business in that time, no matter how small fee are. Especially, when there is a choice with comparable performance.
I never said otherwise. But "could be dangerous" is a shitty way to live life.
So I’d have to make my decision based on lifestyles you approve of?
It's *not* dangerous, and MPEG-LA has made statements to allay any fears of it becoming dangerous in the future, and WebM can be just as dangerous as H.264, and you and your fellow apologists (notice the context which makes this term proper) gloss over this. MPEG-LA has already claimed that WebM most likely infringes upon their patents. If you adopt it, you risk a danger that is actually likely and in MPEG-LA's interest, as opposed to an imaginary danger
You compare a news statement of a paid spokesperson of MPEG-LA that there will be no further changes of licence terms against Google’s irrevocable release? You compare a lifetime of paying MPEG-LA against potential damages based on claims that are not proven in court? You may wanna google up term “risk management”. Or Bing it up, or whatever
