4 ms·

What do you mean by "Resolve the licensing issue"? They don't own H.264, how do you want them to "resolve" something they don't own?

by pavs 17y ago

tomerico 17y ago
I assume they could keep the part that decode H.264 closed source, or other creative solution.
- baby 17y ago
  or use ogg ?
swombat 17y ago
Problems can always be resolved. Some things are truly impossible (change the taste of the colour purple), some are technically impossible (fly by flapping your wings), and some are just impossible due to disagreements between people (release an open-source implementation of a closed codec). If you can resolve the first, you're God. If you can resolve the second, you're a technological visionary. If you can resolve the third, you're a good politician. Only the first category can be really considered impossible to achieve. Resolving licensing issues with H.264 is hardly impossible in that respect.
- pavs 17y ago
  What do you _mean_ by "resolving"? You want adobe to buy H.264 and give it away for free? That's pretty much impossible. You can't just throw around the word "resolve" things without understanding the complexity or nature of the possible solutions.
  - swombat 17y ago
    I mean "do 'stuff' that makes the problem 'go away'". As a former management consultant, and now a start-up founder, believe me, I speak from experience when I say every problem of this kind is solvable if you want to do it badly enough.
    - pavs 17y ago
      There is only "one stuff" they can do to make the problem go away (in your words "resolving licensing issues"), which is, they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. The other stuff that I can think of is that they can use Ogg Theora, which is hardly a solution, considering (IMO) it is an inferior codec.
      - swombat 17y ago
        "There is only one way to do X" = the way narrow-minded, uncreative people see the world.
      - lftl 17y ago
        they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. As the discussion around H.264/Theora etc has heated up I've started wondering about this. There are now at least 3 rather large players with relatively deep pockets that all have licensed h.264 for products they essentially give away. So what if Google, Apple, and Adobe all pooled together and purchased the patents for h.264 and licensed it for free (or possibly a free non-commercial license, and force any other big players using it to chip in). I wonder what the price tag on that would be.
        ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        I can't believe this number is correct, but one of the Xiph guys claimed that the MPEG 2 patents (i.e. DVDs), which are all still in force and built on top of for MPEG-4 part2 and part 10 (i.e H.264) took in $67 dollars for every person on the planet in 2008. That's half a trillion dollars in a year, and that's not even counting revenue they get from MPEG-4 or the audio codecs.
    - swombat 17y ago
      What's with the group downvotes, folks? I stopped responding to this guy because his points are worthless. I'd rather the space on this page was used up by intelligent discussion rather than needless debate over a concept that is obvious to anyone who actually does any kind of ambiguous, difficult work (e.g. running a start-up, being a consultant, and generally being anything more than an employee who takes orders). Please don't force me to waste space and energy arguing this stupid point.
jwr 17y ago
It always annoys me when people talk about "stuff" without thinking for a moment what the "stuff" actually is. What do you mean by "they don't own H.264"? What does "H.264" mean in your sentence? H.264 is a standard that defines how to decode an elementary video stream. You can't "own it". You can own rights to an implementation — but that's where things get interesting. There are many H.264 decoders, some of which are open source and could be used by Adobe. So their argument is rather weak.
- mambodog 17y ago
  "You can't "own it"." Well sure you can... you can patent it. In that case, making use of even an F/OSS implementation (such as x264) doesn't guarantee that you have not infringed upon MPEG LA's patents (where they are applicable/enforced).
joeyo 17y ago
Presumably they are already paying for H.264 in flash anyway; why would they stop after open sourcing it?

What do you mean by "Resolve the licensing issue"? They don't own H.264, how do you want them to "resolve" something they don't own?

by pavs 17y ago

What do you mean by "Resolve the licensing issue"? They don't own H.264, how do you want them to "resolve" something they don't own?

tomerico 17y ago

I assume they could keep the part that decode H.264 closed source, or other creative solution.

baby 17y ago
or use ogg ?

swombat 17y ago

Problems can always be resolved. Some things are truly impossible (change the taste of the colour purple), some are technically impossible (fly by flapping your wings), and some are just impossible due to disagreements between people (release an open-source implementation of a closed codec). If you can resolve the first, you're God. If you can resolve the second, you're a technological visionary. If you can resolve the third, you're a good politician. Only the first category can be really considered impossible to achieve. Resolving licensing issues with H.264 is hardly impossible in that respect.

pavs 17y ago
What do you _mean_ by "resolving"? You want adobe to buy H.264 and give it away for free? That's pretty much impossible. You can't just throw around the word "resolve" things without understanding the complexity or nature of the possible solutions.
- swombat 17y ago
  I mean "do 'stuff' that makes the problem 'go away'". As a former management consultant, and now a start-up founder, believe me, I speak from experience when I say every problem of this kind is solvable if you want to do it badly enough.
  - pavs 17y ago
    There is only "one stuff" they can do to make the problem go away (in your words "resolving licensing issues"), which is, they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. The other stuff that I can think of is that they can use Ogg Theora, which is hardly a solution, considering (IMO) it is an inferior codec.
    - swombat 17y ago
      "There is only one way to do X" = the way narrow-minded, uncreative people see the world.
    - lftl 17y ago
      they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. As the discussion around H.264/Theora etc has heated up I've started wondering about this. There are now at least 3 rather large players with relatively deep pockets that all have licensed h.264 for products they essentially give away. So what if Google, Apple, and Adobe all pooled together and purchased the patents for h.264 and licensed it for free (or possibly a free non-commercial license, and force any other big players using it to chip in). I wonder what the price tag on that would be.
      - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        I can't believe this number is correct, but one of the Xiph guys claimed that the MPEG 2 patents (i.e. DVDs), which are all still in force and built on top of for MPEG-4 part2 and part 10 (i.e H.264) took in $67 dollars for every person on the planet in 2008. That's half a trillion dollars in a year, and that's not even counting revenue they get from MPEG-4 or the audio codecs.
  - swombat 17y ago
    What's with the group downvotes, folks? I stopped responding to this guy because his points are worthless. I'd rather the space on this page was used up by intelligent discussion rather than needless debate over a concept that is obvious to anyone who actually does any kind of ambiguous, difficult work (e.g. running a start-up, being a consultant, and generally being anything more than an employee who takes orders). Please don't force me to waste space and energy arguing this stupid point.

jwr 17y ago

It always annoys me when people talk about "stuff" without thinking for a moment what the "stuff" actually is. What do you mean by "they don't own H.264"? What does "H.264" mean in your sentence? H.264 is a standard that defines how to decode an elementary video stream. You can't "own it". You can own rights to an implementation — but that's where things get interesting. There are many H.264 decoders, some of which are open source and could be used by Adobe. So their argument is rather weak.

mambodog 17y ago
"You can't "own it"." Well sure you can... you can patent it. In that case, making use of even an F/OSS implementation (such as x264) doesn't guarantee that you have not infringed upon MPEG LA's patents (where they are applicable/enforced).

joeyo 17y ago

Presumably they are already paying for H.264 in flash anyway; why would they stop after open sourcing it?