

WebM: Missing The Assurances Open Source Needs? - bensummers
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2973&blogid=41

======
pquerna
including field of use restrictions in the patent license was a pretty
terrible move from google, I'm sure they had their reasons, but it isn't
really a good way to progress the open source codec scene.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
There was some discussion about different licences for the codebase and the
format. I'm not sure of the details but this is something the ffmpeg guys
raised I think.

Given the (somewhat surprising, considering who it's coming from) lack of
rigor in his other complaints, it's entirely possible this is a non issue. I
guess we'll see.

edit:

The bitstream licence: <http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/>

The software licence: <http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/>

Only the latter includes the phrase "this implementation of VP8" that is
objected to, the former has the more general "implementations of this
specification" in the same place.

What that actually means in legal theory or practice I have no idea.

