|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
That does not mean we should have to hand over every piece of info about
ourselves.
If you want a contemporary lifestyle you already have to agree to all sorts of
EULA's, but for now anonymously.
If this vp8 thing means you have to give your name address etc to a search
company that already knows the link between IP number and loads of search
requests then were do we go ?
reminds me of the text about 666 were people couldnt sell or buy without the
sign of the beast. (or something like that)
"Did you see great video A ?"
"Eh no"
"Lets watch it now on your computer"
"Eh no"
"Why not ?"
"well I value my privacy, and therefore cannot have a vp8 license from the
'don't do evil' company."
"Oh I see (not)(weird spoilsport)"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
Yes, but the only people who have to provide that information are developers
who want to write software that uses VP8. And if you were negotiating a
commercial patent license you'd have to provide exactly that same information as
part of the agreement, to nail down exactly who's agreeing to the license terms.
So if there's a privacy issue, it's no greater than exists in any commercial
license agreement. And since it ends with me, there aren't any privacy
implications for users of my software.
The biggest problem I see is that
the terms aren't GPL-compatible. But that may not be a problem because the terms
in question are for the general patent rights independent of any particular
software (ie. if a company wanted rights to develop software not based on
anything Google published). Most open-source software would probably be getting
it from the WebM project, where the Additional IP Rights
Grant comes into play and that one is GPL-compatible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
The "non-sublicenseable" in section 3 alone makes it unattractive for
Open Source, and probably outright incompatible with copyleft licenses.
It may still be financially more attractive than h.264, but in terms of freedom
one might as well deal with the MPEG LA at this point. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
