OpenH264 in Fedora

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Tue Nov 5 01:24:09 UTC 2013

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:29:02PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:21:56 -0600,
>   Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro at> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 13:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >>I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official
> >>Fedora
> >>position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be
> >>making
> >>claims about Fedora on my own on how far Fedora will or won't go in
> >>supporting OpenH264. (This could in theory affect our ability to use
> >>the
> >>Firefox trademark if we block its ability to download that codec from
> >>Cisco.
> >>Assuming that the download is implemented in Firefox.)
> >
> >Thanks very much; the statement at [1] makes it clear that Fedora will
> >not support WebRTC if H.264 becomes MTI. Now, who wants to tell the
> >IETF....
> >
> >[1]
> >
> That's not what it says. That just says we won't package the binary.
> What isn't answered is limitations on the process for Firefox
> downloading it in Fedora. I really doubt firefox will be totally
> prevented from downloading the binary as a plugin. It might be only
> doable by an admin. The default might be changed so it doesn't
> automatically do the install. Or there might be other tweaks to make
> it less intrusive for people that don't want it or maybe to make sure
> they understand the restrictions they agree to by using / downloading
> the binary. And it looks like that falls under FESCO's purview (if
> they want some limitations).
I've opened to discuss this at
Wednesday's FESCo meeting.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list