4 ms·

"free standards" I'm glad somebody finally figured out how to accurately describe webm. All this hand-waving talk of 'openness' and 'open standards' was debate

"free standards" I'm glad somebody finally figured out how to accurately describe webm. All this hand-waving talk of 'openness' and 'open standards' was debate poison.

9oliYQjP 16y ago
Except it's not "free" in the Free software sense. Google specifically addresses why they didn't use a GPL license but rather BSD. They want to promote WebM in proprietary, closed, products. http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ "One of the goals of having this code licensed as liberally as possible is to encourage adoption by as many users as possible. This includes both proprietary and free software. Using the GPL license would not be a good match for this goal." The WebM issue is far from black and white. I still haven't figured out which side I agree with more. What I do know is that a lot of people are arguing tactics. This is a battle between corporations and everybody should be taking 100 steps back to try to figure out the strategies at work on both sides. Edit: What I'm alluding to in my last point is a lot like Paul Graham's point in this essay from a while back: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- spiffworks 16y ago
  No, clearly it's not Free as in FSF, but 'free as in beer' is the only thing that separates it from H.264, it's definitely the most accurate description I've seen yet.
  - hakl 16y ago
    It's compliant with FSF's definition of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and Debian's guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract). Stallman himself agreed that it was a good thing for Xiph to relicense their libraries from the LGPL to a permissive free software license (http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/000005.html http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/00...): In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use."
    - spiffworks 16y ago
      Well, we're talking about two things, really- the webm reference implementation and the license under which the patents covering the spec are licensed. I guess the reference implementation is free as in freedom, and the spec is free as in beer to re-implement. This is why 'free standard' is such a pithy and accurate description.
- nicholasjbs 16y ago
  BSD-licensed software is free software according to the FSF (see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleL...), it's just not copyleft.

"free standards" I'm glad somebody finally figured out how to accurately describe webm. All this hand-waving talk of 'openness' and 'open standards' was debate poison.

9oliYQjP 16y ago

Except it's not "free" in the Free software sense. Google specifically addresses why they didn't use a GPL license but rather BSD. They want to promote WebM in proprietary, closed, products. http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ "One of the goals of having this code licensed as liberally as possible is to encourage adoption by as many users as possible. This includes both proprietary and free software. Using the GPL license would not be a good match for this goal." The WebM issue is far from black and white. I still haven't figured out which side I agree with more. What I do know is that a lot of people are arguing tactics. This is a battle between corporations and everybody should be taking 100 steps back to try to figure out the strategies at work on both sides. Edit: What I'm alluding to in my last point is a lot like Paul Graham's point in this essay from a while back: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

spiffworks 16y ago
No, clearly it's not Free as in FSF, but 'free as in beer' is the only thing that separates it from H.264, it's definitely the most accurate description I've seen yet.
- hakl 16y ago
  It's compliant with FSF's definition of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and Debian's guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract). Stallman himself agreed that it was a good thing for Xiph to relicense their libraries from the LGPL to a permissive free software license (http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/000005.html http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/00...): In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use."
  - spiffworks 16y ago
    Well, we're talking about two things, really- the webm reference implementation and the license under which the patents covering the spec are licensed. I guess the reference implementation is free as in freedom, and the spec is free as in beer to re-implement. This is why 'free standard' is such a pithy and accurate description.
nicholasjbs 16y ago
BSD-licensed software is free software according to the FSF (see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleL...), it's just not copyleft.