http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-5166...l?tag=nefd_top

The steering committee for the DVD Forum on Friday announced provisional
approval for Microsoft's VC-9 and two other video technologies--H.264 and
MPEG-2--as mandatory for the HD-DVD video specification for playback
devices. VC-9 is the reference title for the underlying video decoding
technology within Windows Media Video 9. The approval is subject to several
conditions, including an update in 60 days of licensing terms and
conditions.

Irrelevant to Linux advocacy.
Please stop spamming this group with your irrelevant Microsoft bashing.

"John Bailo" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zIB0c.13609$yZ1.12897@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Super Spinner wrote:

highly relevant to Linux if it means that we'll be locked out from playing
the new format HD-DVD discs on our Linux computers...

whoah!!! I've got a high horse here for you to climb on...

- --
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away
from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAQwPnNclAUt2HMX8RApixAJwInmou9JUBDMgjDmdELK 3yyJU73QCgmpuB
Ws+GMFA2Js1z5n3+4q1FhjU=
=oIUZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

paul cooke wrote:

Officially/legally, it's illegal to play DVDs in Linux, in the US, anyway,
right?

Jan Knutar wrote:

No
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

paul cooke <paul_cooke@linux_NO_SPAM_mail.org> wrote in
news:1907587.cllz53vdpE@cooke-main-box.madhouse:

Why would it mean that? From the article:

"As a condition to Microsoft before it could establish VC-9 as a
standard, it had to strip VC-9 of proprietary status, Majidimehr said.
The company satisfied that condition when it submitted the underlying
video compression technology to SMPTE last year and opened up its
software to developers for the first time. Now developers can download
the technical spec, build on it and not be beholden to Microsoft."

Doesn't that include Linux developers?

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael M. ~~ hfrargspam@msbx.net ~~ New York City, NY USA |
| "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely |
| under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

mcubed wrote:

If developers can download it and use it, then I would guess that would also
apply to Linux.

--
Never hitch your future to just one wagon because you can't tell which one
will go off a cliff.

In article <Xns94A4BD305F4hfrargspammsbxnet@127.0.0.1>, mcubed wrote:
It depends on what they mean by non-proprietary. What that often means for
standards bodies is that the technology be fully documented and available to
everyone on the same terms. It doesn't mean that those have to be terms
that are compatible with free (in the FSF sense) software or Open Source
software. It is common, for example, for such things to be covered by
patents, and to require a fee to license that patent.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:
and microsoft's new tactic is to have an anti-gpl clause in their patent
licensing terms.

<http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp>
|If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this
|license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be
|prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source
|code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with
|your Licensed Implementation:
|
|"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft
|Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing
|such intellectual property may be found at
|http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp."
|
|By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be
|deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You
|are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license
|terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this
|license.
|
|You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:45:09PM +0000, paul cooke wrote:
Fortunately the patent law "tactic" of patents being invalid if prior
art can be demonstrated renders that patent worthless.

--
GNU/Linux revenues last quarter: $1 Billion.
micros~1 revenues last quarter: $4 Billion.
It's no longer a question of windows or GNU, it's a question of *Unix* or GNU.

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
news:Bor2c.25270$aT1.15770@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net:

Yes, it doesn't mean that MS is obligated to license its standard in ways
that are compatible with the GPL, and I can't imagine MS doing that. But
unless I'm missing something, it also means that Linux users can't "be
locked out from playing the new format HD-DVD discs" [quoting from parent
to my post above]. SuSE and Mandrake, to name two, already include
several non-free programs, available to users who purchase the distros,
for which patent fees are required. Wouldn't this be more non-free tech
included in commercial distros? If there is no way for MS to prevent
commercial Linux distros from using the technology, then Linux users are
not "locked out." Debian users, perhaps, but not Linux users.

I imagine people will find a way of playing them anyway, regardless of
the OS or any patent issues.


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael M. ~~ hfrargspam@msbx.net ~~ New York City, NY USA |
| "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely |
| under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+