| WebM Community Cross-License announced |
[Apr. 27th, 2011|09:09 am]
|
In case folks have missed it (or worse, read about about it on Ars Technica)...
The WebM folks have finally finished up their work on the WebM Community Cross-License project and announced the license launch. This is a FOSS defensive license/pool similar to what a couple other groups are trying out (and similar to the defensive patent license that Xiph is already using for our parts of Opus within the IETF).
The basic idea of the cross-license is:
"Everyone is free to use any known or unknown WebM patents. Unless you sue over patents related to WebM. In that case, we all agree to yank your license."
In short, it's sort of a NATO for FOSS patents; a free license with an agreed-upon mutual defense clause that tries to enforce everyone playing nice. This strategy is not a new idea, but it's interesting that several different FOSS groups, Xiph and WebM included, are finally trying the idea for real in practice. |
|
|
| Comments: |
From: (Anonymous)
2011-04-27 04:25 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Hi.
Why the bad remark on Ars Technica? In general, I think is a nice site. I remember one really stupid article about openess in the h.264 vs VP8 debate... is because of that?
The main thrust of the article seems to want to cast the CCL as a rushed reactionary measure to the MPEG-LA's patent pool call earlier this year when in fact there's no cause and effect there. Any investigation would have revealed such, but there didn't seem to be any. That's indicitive of deciding on the story you want, then going to find what you need to write that article.
The WebM CCL has been in the works from at very least the time we first found out WebM was happening around this time last year. Nor is the license itself particularly novel, though it is novel for a company the size of Google to be promoting it.
Edited at 2011-04-27 05:18 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
2011-04-27 11:50 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Thanks for the reply!
It's nice that I try to read as many sources as possible, and even nicer when someone like you is responsive to an anonymous.
Go Xiph!
It was a perfectly good question :-)
From: (Anonymous)
2011-04-28 08:09 am (UTC)
Not Ars, just one author | (Link)
|
I read Ars Technica and find it generally high quality but with notable exceptions every so often. They give each individual author a lot of latitude which has both positives and negatives. In this case, their Microsoft correspondent, Peter Bright, appears to have taken offence to WebM and is actively campaigning against it. This gives every article that mentions WebM a very slanted take. He'll also pop up in the comments section to argue (as "DrPizza") which gives you a further insight into his opinions and how strongly he holds them. | |
xiphmont
