OpenH264 in Fedora

Reindl Harald h.reindl at
Mon Nov 4 19:07:05 UTC 2013

Am 04.11.2013 19:35, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:28 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:46:07 +0100,
>>    Alberto Ruiz <aruiz at> wrote:
>>> While I agree that we shouldn't silently install non-free software (and
>>> I'm sure Mozilla doesn't want to either), saying that they are
>>> effectively non-free is a bit inaccurate, the _binaries_ are not
>>> re-distributable under US jurisdiction, access to the source code is
>>> granted, which makes them non-US, the software is free (the source
>>> license does grant 4 freedoms). There are plenty of countries where
>>> software patents are not valid making it perfectly fine.
>> If you don't need to worry about the patents, then x264 (available from 
>> RPMFusion) is going to be better code to use for handling h.264.
> How is the code from RPMFusion any better? And if getting it through
> RPMFusion is acceptable, why is it suddenly unacceptable to do it trough
> other means? I don't care about the quality of the code, I just care
> that my video is decoded.

decide this for yourself but do not taint Fedora for this reason

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list