4 ms·

It just depends how much you value your freedom.

pohl 17y ago
I understand the issue, but in practice I worry about the patents that cover H.264 about as much as I do those that cover the PDF spec...which is to say: not at all.
- metajack 17y ago
  How are these comprable? Adobe has a patent agreement that says it won't sue you if you are implementing PDF or PostScript. Sure, it's maybe not absolute freedom, but it is markedly better than the situation with any of the encumbered audio codecs. I'm not an adobe defender by any means, but the practical consequence of this is that there exists a lot of Free Software that supports PDF and PostScript (like Ghostscript) and ships with all distros. The situation for H.264 is hardly similar.
- Sanguinez 17y ago
  Ah so if YOU don't worry about, I guess everything is going to be fine :)
- metajack 17y ago
  A second point I forgot to mention is that I do not know of Adobe suing anyone over standard PDF/PostScript features, but there is a long history of Thompson and all the other audio/video patent holders being very litigious and threatening. Perhaps no one remembers 8hz-enc or why the LAME project doesn't distribute binaries (or at least didn't for a long time; I've not looked lately). The story for MP3 players wasn't a super happy one either at one time.
jws 17y ago
I value watching non-crappy video enough to pay $0.20 for an H.264 license. 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_TermsSummary.pdf 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.
- Sanguinez 17y ago
  So it looks like your value your freedom to $0.20. "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." Then free software would'nt be ablo to be free software. You cannot preserve freedom this way.
  - ez77 17y ago
    You mean software freedom, I guess. Personal freedom is greater with BSD than GPL, and with public-domain software than with any of them. Personal freedom includes the right to sell software at $0.20 or $200, and the customer's right to buy it or not. For the record, I'm against software patents, but also against being forced to publish one's code, which incidentally maximizes personal freedom.
    - Sanguinez 17y ago
      Yes I mean software freedom. Well, free software (whether it is GNU/GPL or BSD-like) allow you to sell it. But how could it remain free (as in freedom) if redistribution has strings attached?
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        But how could it remain free (as in freedom) if redistribution has strings attached? This is the problem right here; you used a term without bothering to mention that you're using a very specific definition of that term. In your view "freedom" does not mean maximizing my rights to do things with the software; instead, it involves deliberately limiting my rights in order to force me to pass along (your definition of) "freedom" to others. There are definitions of freedom, many surprisingly common, which do not include that little quirk, and you'll find that "give up some of your freedom for someone else's sake" is, to many people, like saying "pay higher taxes so someone else can benefit".
      - Sanguinez 17y ago
        Just to be clear. From OSI (see http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd ): "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
GHFigs 17y ago
Except that's bullshit and you're attempting to paint critics of ham-fisted attempts to promote an ideology through user punishment as not valuing freedom, rather than actually explaining why the dumb move should not be called a dumb move. 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.
- Sanguinez 17y ago
  Why is it bullshit? I never implied anything about you/ How using H.264 would be beneficial to free software and open standards? This is really about how much you value your freedom. About at what point you will abandon your freedom for any other advantage, such as hardware support (proprietary drivers in the linux kernel for instance) or performance (h.264 vs theora in this case). So this more about being willing to sacrifice a little bit of performance for your freedom than looking for best performances at all costs. Theora is getting continuously improved and is catching up little by little. They may also be some other company releasing some other codecs under free software-friendly licenses, who knows? But in the mean time, what is more important to you (as a user, in general): performance or freedom? So if you don't care about your freedom, it is understandable you wouldn't care less about theora vs h.264. If you would care a little bit more, you would be ready to compromise on some parts, and if you have a long beard, you wouldn't compromise at all. And I am also wondering, if mozilla starts accepting patented or proprietary technologies, where would you draw the line? How would you ensure Mozilla's products remain free (as in freedom)
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    You're still doing exactly what I just said ("attempting to paint critics of [of what Mozilla is doing] as not valuing freedom") with lines like "what is more important to you: performance or freedom?"--as if any dumb move can be absolved by saying you did it for the sake of freedom. I don't know what to make of most of your second paragraph, as I've made no argument about performance. I'm talking about the simple fact that Firefox users cannot view certain content that is being deployed on the web today (h.264 in <video>) because Mozilla has chosen to use the size of its user base to "encourage" the adoption of Theora. This is not freedom. This is stupid. if mozilla starts accepting patented or proprietary technologies Nobody is saying they have to. There are a half dozen other comments in this thread explaining better than I could that Mozilla could support other codecs without tainting their own products if they chose to. The problem is that they are choosing not to and that hurts users to no good end.

pohl 17y ago

I understand the issue, but in practice I worry about the patents that cover H.264 about as much as I do those that cover the PDF spec...which is to say: not at all.

metajack 17y ago
How are these comprable? Adobe has a patent agreement that says it won't sue you if you are implementing PDF or PostScript. Sure, it's maybe not absolute freedom, but it is markedly better than the situation with any of the encumbered audio codecs. I'm not an adobe defender by any means, but the practical consequence of this is that there exists a lot of Free Software that supports PDF and PostScript (like Ghostscript) and ships with all distros. The situation for H.264 is hardly similar.
Sanguinez 17y ago
Ah so if YOU don't worry about, I guess everything is going to be fine :)
metajack 17y ago
A second point I forgot to mention is that I do not know of Adobe suing anyone over standard PDF/PostScript features, but there is a long history of Thompson and all the other audio/video patent holders being very litigious and threatening. Perhaps no one remembers 8hz-enc or why the LAME project doesn't distribute binaries (or at least didn't for a long time; I've not looked lately). The story for MP3 players wasn't a super happy one either at one time.

jws 17y ago

I value watching non-crappy video enough to pay $0.20 for an H.264 license. 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_TermsSummary.pdf 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.

Sanguinez 17y ago
So it looks like your value your freedom to $0.20. "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." Then free software would'nt be ablo to be free software. You cannot preserve freedom this way.
- ez77 17y ago
  You mean software freedom, I guess. Personal freedom is greater with BSD than GPL, and with public-domain software than with any of them. Personal freedom includes the right to sell software at $0.20 or $200, and the customer's right to buy it or not. For the record, I'm against software patents, but also against being forced to publish one's code, which incidentally maximizes personal freedom.
  - Sanguinez 17y ago
    Yes I mean software freedom. Well, free software (whether it is GNU/GPL or BSD-like) allow you to sell it. But how could it remain free (as in freedom) if redistribution has strings attached?
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      But how could it remain free (as in freedom) if redistribution has strings attached? This is the problem right here; you used a term without bothering to mention that you're using a very specific definition of that term. In your view "freedom" does not mean maximizing my rights to do things with the software; instead, it involves deliberately limiting my rights in order to force me to pass along (your definition of) "freedom" to others. There are definitions of freedom, many surprisingly common, which do not include that little quirk, and you'll find that "give up some of your freedom for someone else's sake" is, to many people, like saying "pay higher taxes so someone else can benefit".
    - Sanguinez 17y ago
      Just to be clear. From OSI (see http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd ): "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

GHFigs 17y ago

Except that's bullshit and you're attempting to paint critics of ham-fisted attempts to promote an ideology through user punishment as not valuing freedom, rather than actually explaining why the dumb move should not be called a dumb move. 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.

Sanguinez 17y ago
Why is it bullshit? I never implied anything about you/ How using H.264 would be beneficial to free software and open standards? This is really about how much you value your freedom. About at what point you will abandon your freedom for any other advantage, such as hardware support (proprietary drivers in the linux kernel for instance) or performance (h.264 vs theora in this case). So this more about being willing to sacrifice a little bit of performance for your freedom than looking for best performances at all costs. Theora is getting continuously improved and is catching up little by little. They may also be some other company releasing some other codecs under free software-friendly licenses, who knows? But in the mean time, what is more important to you (as a user, in general): performance or freedom? So if you don't care about your freedom, it is understandable you wouldn't care less about theora vs h.264. If you would care a little bit more, you would be ready to compromise on some parts, and if you have a long beard, you wouldn't compromise at all. And I am also wondering, if mozilla starts accepting patented or proprietary technologies, where would you draw the line? How would you ensure Mozilla's products remain free (as in freedom)
- GHFigs 17y ago
  You're still doing exactly what I just said ("attempting to paint critics of [of what Mozilla is doing] as not valuing freedom") with lines like "what is more important to you: performance or freedom?"--as if any dumb move can be absolved by saying you did it for the sake of freedom. I don't know what to make of most of your second paragraph, as I've made no argument about performance. I'm talking about the simple fact that Firefox users cannot view certain content that is being deployed on the web today (h.264 in <video>) because Mozilla has chosen to use the size of its user base to "encourage" the adoption of Theora. This is not freedom. This is stupid. if mozilla starts accepting patented or proprietary technologies Nobody is saying they have to. There are a half dozen other comments in this thread explaining better than I could that Mozilla could support other codecs without tainting their own products if they chose to. The problem is that they are choosing not to and that hurts users to no good end.