4 ms·

> "This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties

by cletus 16y ago

> "This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations." According to the FSF's definition of software freedom. The FSF has quite a radical view in this regard. A Microsoft exec once described the GPL as "viral' [1] and it's a fair point. Many view licenses like MIT and Apache as being more free simply because they're not as restrictive. This ambiguity is more pronounced when you use words like "open" because it means different things to different people. So it would be more accurate to say that H.264 is incompatible with the FSF's idea of software freedom. > if it gets entrenched What do you mean "if"? It already has. > Why wait until a fiasco? Because anyone who writes software knows that writing code to solve problems you may never have is a recipe for wasted effort if not outright disaster. It's a bit like the standoff between the (former) Soviet Union and the USA: not a single shot was ever (directly) fired between the two but the threat of escalating conflict kept them in check (resulting in proxy conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc but I digress). Think about it this way: MPEG-LA could announce tomorrow that licenses now cost $1 trillion. The result? Obviously no one would pay and a new standard would arise pretty quickly. What if it was $1 billion? $100 million? The point here it is simply a question of degree. So what keeps (and will keep) MPEG-LA in check is market forces, the limits of what people can and will pay and the threat of a free or cheaper alternative... much like any market. Switching formats is a process that can be automated so the transition cost isn't really that high. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Viral_Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Vira...

spiffworks 16y ago
Ok, here is how I define minimal software freedom - I give you a piece of software, along with source code, you are free to use it in anyway you please, or make your modifications and distribute it to as many people as you like. With H.264 bundled with a piece of software, that is not possible. > This ambiguity is more pronounced when you use words like "open" because it means different things to different people. I never once used the word in my post. >What do you mean "if"? It already has. You're arguing for the status quo. Everything seems entrenched until an alternative comes along. You seem to completely ignore that the H.264 license is directly opposed to free software. There's a reason Chromium never supported H.264, while only Chrome did. Nobody except the patent holders benefits from a de facto patent-encumbered codec.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  With H.264 bundled with a piece of software, that is not possible. The decision to only support bundled codecs and refuse to let the user use anything else was made by Mozilla, Google, and Opera. It is not a spec requirement or technical necessity. The idea that a browser would be forced to bundle h.264 is quite evidently mistaken, as the browsers that do support it don't bundle it.
  - vetinari 16y ago
    The browsers that do support it run on the platform by the same vendor. IE9 runs only on Vista/7, where MS provides H.264 decoder. Safari runs only with Quicktime, where Apple provides H.264 decoder. So although the browsers do not come with decoders, they use their vendor's decoder and nothing else. On the other hand, if Mozilla/Opera/Chrome used third party decoder, that would be support nightmare ("It works on my computer, but not on friend's! Please fix it!").
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      The browsers that do support it run on the platform by the same vendor. I don't understand the significance. The same APIs are accessible to any other browser. If someone has evidence that Mozilla, et al. have been technically locked out of using the media APIs on Windows or Mac OS X, I'd be interested in the details, and if someone has evidence that they've been locked out of using the media APIs on Linux, I'll eat my hat. they use their vendor's decoder and nothing else I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean something like "Windows will only support h.264 and you can't use anything else", then that is exactly wrong.
      - vetinari 16y ago
        It is not only about APIs, but also about control. Microsoft can always rely, that IE9 will supports whatever formats they want it to support. They know, that it will play H.264, because they ship H.264 with Vista and 7 and IE9 supports only Vista and 7. Apple can also always rely, that Safari will display formats they want it to display. They know, that Safari will play H.264, because Quicktime ships with H.264 and Quicktime is bundled with OSX, or with Safari for Windows. If Mozilla/Google/Opera outsource this to OS, they lose control. They will not know, what the browser will display (imagine handing off control about HTML/CSS/JS to Microsoft, when IE6 was going down and Firefox up. It would be like Firefox using IE HTML control to display HTML). Another problem from the control perspective is inconsistent support among platforms. Platform A, it will play formats X and Y. On platform B, formats Y and Z. On C, X a Z. Do you see problem here?
_delirium 16y ago
> So it would be more accurate to say that H.264 is incompatible with the FSF's idea of software freedom. It depends on how you define "compatible", but H.264 is only sort of compatible with MIT-style licensing as well. It's compatible in the sense that, if you start with MIT-licensed software, you can slap on the required H.264 license and not violate any laws (MIT-licensed software can be relicensed under more restrictive terms). But it's incompatible in the sense that you can't actually choose to ship your software under the MIT license and the MIT license alone. In that sense, H.264's license is viral: any software that supports H.264 in any form must incorporate the the H.264 license.
morganw 16y ago
> A Microsoft exec once described the GPL as "viral' [1] and it's a fair point. It's not. Plain old copyright is viral. A derived work's copying can only be done with permission of original and deriving author. If you use a commercial library, the license you paid for is that permission. If someone then creates a new work from yours, permission is needed from all three authors unless the original library came with those particular redistribution rights.

by cletus 16y ago

spiffworks 16y ago

Ok, here is how I define minimal software freedom - I give you a piece of software, along with source code, you are free to use it in anyway you please, or make your modifications and distribute it to as many people as you like. With H.264 bundled with a piece of software, that is not possible. > This ambiguity is more pronounced when you use words like "open" because it means different things to different people. I never once used the word in my post. >What do you mean "if"? It already has. You're arguing for the status quo. Everything seems entrenched until an alternative comes along. You seem to completely ignore that the H.264 license is directly opposed to free software. There's a reason Chromium never supported H.264, while only Chrome did. Nobody except the patent holders benefits from a de facto patent-encumbered codec.

GHFigs 16y ago
With H.264 bundled with a piece of software, that is not possible. The decision to only support bundled codecs and refuse to let the user use anything else was made by Mozilla, Google, and Opera. It is not a spec requirement or technical necessity. The idea that a browser would be forced to bundle h.264 is quite evidently mistaken, as the browsers that do support it don't bundle it.
- vetinari 16y ago
  The browsers that do support it run on the platform by the same vendor. IE9 runs only on Vista/7, where MS provides H.264 decoder. Safari runs only with Quicktime, where Apple provides H.264 decoder. So although the browsers do not come with decoders, they use their vendor's decoder and nothing else. On the other hand, if Mozilla/Opera/Chrome used third party decoder, that would be support nightmare ("It works on my computer, but not on friend's! Please fix it!").
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    The browsers that do support it run on the platform by the same vendor. I don't understand the significance. The same APIs are accessible to any other browser. If someone has evidence that Mozilla, et al. have been technically locked out of using the media APIs on Windows or Mac OS X, I'd be interested in the details, and if someone has evidence that they've been locked out of using the media APIs on Linux, I'll eat my hat. they use their vendor's decoder and nothing else I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean something like "Windows will only support h.264 and you can't use anything else", then that is exactly wrong.
    - vetinari 16y ago
      It is not only about APIs, but also about control. Microsoft can always rely, that IE9 will supports whatever formats they want it to support. They know, that it will play H.264, because they ship H.264 with Vista and 7 and IE9 supports only Vista and 7. Apple can also always rely, that Safari will display formats they want it to display. They know, that Safari will play H.264, because Quicktime ships with H.264 and Quicktime is bundled with OSX, or with Safari for Windows. If Mozilla/Google/Opera outsource this to OS, they lose control. They will not know, what the browser will display (imagine handing off control about HTML/CSS/JS to Microsoft, when IE6 was going down and Firefox up. It would be like Firefox using IE HTML control to display HTML). Another problem from the control perspective is inconsistent support among platforms. Platform A, it will play formats X and Y. On platform B, formats Y and Z. On C, X a Z. Do you see problem here?

_delirium 16y ago

> So it would be more accurate to say that H.264 is incompatible with the FSF's idea of software freedom. It depends on how you define "compatible", but H.264 is only sort of compatible with MIT-style licensing as well. It's compatible in the sense that, if you start with MIT-licensed software, you can slap on the required H.264 license and not violate any laws (MIT-licensed software can be relicensed under more restrictive terms). But it's incompatible in the sense that you can't actually choose to ship your software under the MIT license and the MIT license alone. In that sense, H.264's license is viral: any software that supports H.264 in any form must incorporate the the H.264 license.

morganw 16y ago

> A Microsoft exec once described the GPL as "viral' [1] and it's a fair point. It's not. Plain old copyright is viral. A derived work's copying can only be done with permission of original and deriving author. If you use a commercial library, the license you paid for is that permission. If someone then creates a new work from yours, permission is needed from all three authors unless the original library came with those particular redistribution rights.