[ubernostrum]

Or you just delegate to the OS, which either already ships a licensed copy of the codec (Windows and OS X) or has users who ignore patents and install unlicensed codecs (Linux). By doing this you incur a whopping license fee of... zero dollars, because licensing becomes someone else's problem.

[ZeroGravitas]

It's not someone else's problem if your stated mission is to be "dedicated to promoting and preserving an open, shared and innovative web."

It's like a shareholder owned corporation deciding that making money is someone else's problem.

[GHFigs]

Then why do they still allow me to use Adobe's h.264 license?

[ubernostrum]

It is an ideological issue; look at my other comments and you'll see me saying that.

My problem with comments like the one I was replying to is that they refuse to see this; there is an easy solution to the financial issue of codec licensing, but it keeps getting thrown out as a red herring, when the focus should be on whether Mozilla's ideological stance is a good thing.

[allyt]

they refuse to see this

Nah, just hadn't read up/thought about the issue enough, thanks for explaining. I'm actually a bit of a supporter of software patents, as they give business reason to invest boatloads of money in things like H.264 to begin with.

[sid0]

> which either already ships a licensed copy of the codec (Windows and OS X)

Only Windows 7 does.