..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move. Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.
It's the best of both worlds; you stay free and you get to be compatible.
They're just assholes. If software patents are repealed in the US they'll mourn the loss of the mainstay excuse with which they force earnest activist wankery on their users. If patents were the real obstacle they'd distribute the x264 decoder to/from locales where the patents are unenforceable, and/or fall back on system libraries.
Their present actions serve only to strengthen the Copyright, Patent, and Trademark status quo, because without IP assholery they would neither have a soapbox to stand on nor an enemy to fight.
Chromium's approach to this is slightly better, but it's not all there yet. (Speculating here) Google can afford to distribute Chrome binaries with license protection, but they most likely track the total downloads in order to pay the fees. They cannot easily track the source, which is why Chromium doesn't ship with h.264 either. However, it uses ffmpeg, so if your system ffmpeg has h.264, you'll be able to use that (after this is fixed: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21318)
Ideally, that's the approach Mozilla would take, too. If not, as other posts mentioned, the distros that are willing to distribute non-free will eventually solve the problem.
As they say: Patches Welcome.
I do, which is why I am so critical of Mozilla's "solution" to it, which has confused the issue of not being able to ship h.264 support for the reasons you mention with trying to promote a format that (whatever its merits) nobody wants.
Ideally, that's the approach Mozilla would take, too.
Indeed, it would be, but my understanding is that they are unwilling to do so or unable with their current code, due to the dumb (IMHO) decision to pressure people into using Ogg.
Their implementation is designed to make it extremely difficult to swap in other codecs from a plugin or straightforward patchset. You'd have to fully fork at least Gecko and XULRunner, and extend Firefox. Due to their strong Trademark policies, your fork couldn't use their names or logos (see also: Iceweasel).
Mozilla wouldn't need to distribute h264 decoder. It should allow using 3rd party decoders, either by using system APIs (GStreamer, DirectShow etc) or exposing somekind of plugin interface.
> As they say: Patches Welcome.
Patches haven't been welcome.
I value the runtime on my battery operated devices enough to pay $0.20 for an efficiently decoded format.
(Maybe that is more than $0.20. Depending on volume the H.264 is $0.00, $0.20, or $0.10, but I think there is a base license also required that I can't find. In any event, adding H.264 to a computer probably costs less than half a can of beer.)
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsS...
And remember, I am still allowed to do anything I want with the code. I just have to give MPEG-LA half a can of beer do it.
Let me be clear: I welcome your rebuttal, and I will read it with an open mind. What I will not do, for you, for Mozilla, or any of the multitude in the Free Software movement and elsewhere that use this tactic is sit and wring my hands about how I'm no longer in the freedom-valuer's club or try to claw my way back into proper thought by hemming and hawing and qualifying my opinion until it is meaningless.
What we need is a catchy domain name, some marketing and a few devs and the spice shall flow again.
They support not only H.264--which has a relatively reasonable, low-cost licensing system--but many formats whose licensing models are absurdly overpriced and unreasonable (e.g. MP3). And furthermore, VLC not only supports open standards like H.264, but also plenty of proprietary formats, like VP6, MSMPEG4, and Real Video.
They don't pay a cent to anyone.
... or just use system codecs.
besides I'd guess Google would be happy to have h264-supporting Firefox, and end this farce, so getting some kind of sponsorship from big G wouldn't be that improbable.
Nobody gives a shit about distributing the x264 source code, and only the fosstards even have a hiccup about distributing binaries, especially from hosts outside the US. Ubuntu may not ship with the gstreamer plugin, but it does prompt you to download it the first time it's asked for by an application.
Mozilla's obstinate asshattery around <video> is the biggest present obstacle to getting rid of Flash Video. It's entirely possible that the next IE will ship with full support, and then Mozilla will be the very last obstacle.
The vast majority of people I know in FOSS, both users and developers, could care less about patents. The apparent "FOSS position" comes from a vocal minority, not the majority of FOSS users and developers.
The submission is a reaction to a reaction to YouTube and Vimeo now supporting HTML5 <video>, which enables users of Safari and Chrome to use those sites without Flash. Today, right now.
Firefox users, on the other hand, must continue to use Flash, due to Mozilla's decision to ask the world to revolve around them.
Separation of concerns.
