Quote:
Originally Posted by Silock
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/techn.../h264/faq.html
It's not proprietary, because anyone can make an H.264 codec and sell it. They'll have to pay license fees, but again, that's not proprietary. H.264 is exactly like MP3, which is hardly proprietary, either.
From another web page that says it much better than I could:
"Is the format that Adobe uses for Flash video. It is covered by 129 patents owned by a large range of companies. Apple owns one. Microsoft about 7. Philips and LG are big contributors, as is the Fraunhofer institute, Panasonic, Sony, JVC, Toshiba etc. Apple isn't gaining significantly from the adoption of H.264.
The specification is openly documented and anyone can write a H.264 CODEC. If they can figure out a faster or better way of implementing the spec then they'll have a market. They will need to pay licence fees if they are in a county that allows software patents, but they are otherwise unrestricted.
Flash is a closed format. It isn't documented by Adobe and you can't write your own flash player. If you could then Apple would probably have written their own by now and it wouldn't be an issue. As it is Apple have chosen to to let developers write in C, C++ or Objective C and compile using an IDE that they give away for free. It's hardly a huge barrier to entry."
|
Ok the disconect here is that you aren't getting the difference between available source and proprietary. YES the source is available... but that does not mean it isn't proprietary. AND yes Flash is both proprietary AND closed. I don't like that Flash is the standard but I am a realist. I would LOVE an open source GPL alternative but until then, we are stuck.
If given a choice... WebM is head and shoulders better than h.264 MOSTLY because it is truly open source... h.264 is NOT.
Proprietary does NOT mean people can't view the code ... it does NOT mean people can't make a new codec based on the code... it does mean that someone owns it AND can dictate it's use and fees.