Cisco to release BSD-licensed H.264 stack
I __really__ __really__ don't get the mozilla stance here. It just doesn't make <i>any</i> sense to me.<p>Mozilla has been resisting Googles libre codecs even though they come with full source code and a patent pledge. Google has already even paid to eliminate potential threat from the evil MPEG LA. It is as free(libre) as you can get in this space.<p>On the other hand, the Cisco plugin is no solution at all. A binary module that has to be downloaded by each user? How can Mozilla  justify recommending/requiring a binary module whose source it can not view/audit/share? This approach wouldn't be permitted under Debian Free Software Guidelines, thus ensuring that WebRTC-Firefox won't work on debian and its derivatives.<p>Cisco benefits from H.264 winning the standards battle. They also have patents in the MPEG LA pool. Apple, MS and Cisco - none of them are under any obligations to provide a libre implementation of WebRTC.  Only Google and Mozilla have that responsibility. And they can make it happen today by just agreeing to go with VP8 and VP9 when it lands (both are covered by the patent pledge as well as under the MPEG LA agreement).<p>H.264 is a defacto standard already, I understand. But google, with its control of youtube and Android, can make a serious dent in that. If Moz and Google ensure that VP8 becomes the de-jure WebRTC standard, a Free software implementation of that can be released by mozilla <i>today</i>. No need to wait for Dwolla to come to fruition.<p>I'd really like to understand what I am missing here.