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.
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.
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.
So? Mozilla is making a fair amount of money now. It's a big expense to license, but it's not an unobtainable one. Part of being a big player is sometimes paying out to license the best technology.
Mozilla is asking us to side with them based purely on ideology and an impact to their bottom line as a corporation. And Mozilla is not a tiny garage operation anymore.
