Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doesn't necessarily mean the entire browser has to be closed. Right. I did say that #1 can be worked around. If you you you approach, you still get the Chromium/Chrome model, where you can't release the actual source to the binaries you ship, and worse yet others can't easily fork your "open-source" app while keeping the functionality or redistribute your binaries. > The page you linked clearly says that non-commer…
You are again spectacularly incorrect, this time about the relationship between the distribution of open source code and patent law. It is perfectly 100% legal to distribute uncompiled source code without a license to any related patents. After all, it's a description of the patented machine and not the machine itself, much like an ideal patent application. Where you run into trouble is distributing the compiled bina…
What I said is that the old Chrome model, wherein the official binaries ship H.264 and have a paid-for license, if adopted by Firefox, would have meant two things, as I understand:
1) If someone wants to take the Mozilla binaries and redistribute them (possibly with some simple changes like a different default theme or a default preferences file that whitelists some intranet sites or whatever) they have to pay for an H.264 license. Things like copying Firefox from your computer to your friend's computer would need you to have an H.264 encoder license, since you're creating a new encoder (now it happens that the license fee for that level of distribution is 0, so you're actually ok; just don't put that modified package on a public web site).
2) If someone wants to fork the Mozilla codebase and build a browser with equivalent functionality and distribute it, they have to pay for an H.264 license.
#2 there is precisely what GPLv3 is intended to prevent, by the way. Mozilla is licensed under GPLv2, so this would be within the letter of the license, but arguably not the spirit. Certainly we felt that it would not be within the spirit.