3 ms·

The webm spec is frozen, and all patents are irrevocably licensed. Webm is not 'controlled' by Google.

sudont 16y ago
The patent thing is just FUD by Apple proponents. But, I won't support WebM until it's an ISO standard, frozen is just a promise at this point. Their own site says "dedicated to developing a high-quality..." which, taken literally, means that the project is still underway. Also listed on the front page: "Submit patches and improvements" Yet again, saying that it's a work in progress.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  The encoder is being improved, and the decoder is being optimised for speed on various platforms but the spec defines what the decoder does and it was effectively frozen as soon as Google converted a bunch of Youtube videos and got hardware manufacturers on board. Any change to the format would break existing content (most of Youtube) and shipping hardware.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  The fact that the standard is frozen is not incompatible with them improving their implementation.
- ootachi 16y ago
  ISO leads something to be desired: witness the glacial pace of C++0x (now C++1x). I'd prefer some standardization of VP8 - don't get me wrong - but going through ISO would likely be a mistake.
  - othermaciej 16y ago
    I think you are wrong to project the failings of the C++ committee on ISO as a whole. For H.264/AVC, it was less than 4 years from the first draft to final ratification. It was a joint effort of ISO and ITU-T. Still, if that's too slow, SMPTE seems to go faster when they start with an existing codec. VC-1 and VC-2 (a profile of Dirac) were both done there.
- yuhong 16y ago
  BTW, there is an effect at ISO to do a royalty-free ("Option 1") MPEG: http://www.robglidden.com/tag/mpeg/ http://www.robglidden.com/tag/mpeg/
kenjackson 16y ago
They're not irrevcably licensed. If you find that WebM does actually violate your patents you can't sue otherwise you lose your license to all of the other patents. Realistically Google should not revoke your licenses unless you lose the lawsuit (not when filed), because if they have legitimately infringed your patent then it seems like blackmail to keep them from acting on it by such a method.
- spiffworks 16y ago
  You're quite right, but I think its ridiculous to ask Google to give you a free license to their patents even as you are suing them for infringing yours.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    They're the ones pushing that this be the defactor standard for web video. If that's the case then they shouldn't attempt to block a party from exercising their patent rights by effectively threatening that if they do so they won't have any access to video on the web. Could you imagine MS saying in their Windows license agreement saying that they can revoke your licenses if you sue them over a patent?
    - archangel_one 16y ago
      Yes, I can imagine that quite clearly. It wouldn't be the most repressive clause in that license agreement.
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        AFACT there is no clause in the Windows license that MS could invoke that would prevent you from entering a complete industry. Google's position is literally... screw with us, and if WebM catches on, you can't do video on the internet.
        vetinari 16y ago

The patent thing is just FUD by Apple proponents. But, I won't support WebM until it's an ISO standard, frozen is just a promise at this point. Their own site says "dedicated to developing a high-quality..." which, taken literally, means that the project is still underway. Also listed on the front page: "Submit patches and improvements" Yet again, saying that it's a work in progress.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
The encoder is being improved, and the decoder is being optimised for speed on various platforms but the spec defines what the decoder does and it was effectively frozen as soon as Google converted a bunch of Youtube videos and got hardware manufacturers on board. Any change to the format would break existing content (most of Youtube) and shipping hardware.
bryanlarsen 16y ago
The fact that the standard is frozen is not incompatible with them improving their implementation.
ootachi 16y ago
ISO leads something to be desired: witness the glacial pace of C++0x (now C++1x). I'd prefer some standardization of VP8 - don't get me wrong - but going through ISO would likely be a mistake.
- othermaciej 16y ago
  I think you are wrong to project the failings of the C++ committee on ISO as a whole. For H.264/AVC, it was less than 4 years from the first draft to final ratification. It was a joint effort of ISO and ITU-T. Still, if that's too slow, SMPTE seems to go faster when they start with an existing codec. VC-1 and VC-2 (a profile of Dirac) were both done there.
yuhong 16y ago
BTW, there is an effect at ISO to do a royalty-free ("Option 1") MPEG: http://www.robglidden.com/tag/mpeg/ http://www.robglidden.com/tag/mpeg/

kenjackson 16y ago

They're not irrevcably licensed. If you find that WebM does actually violate your patents you can't sue otherwise you lose your license to all of the other patents. Realistically Google should not revoke your licenses unless you lose the lawsuit (not when filed), because if they have legitimately infringed your patent then it seems like blackmail to keep them from acting on it by such a method.

spiffworks 16y ago
You're quite right, but I think its ridiculous to ask Google to give you a free license to their patents even as you are suing them for infringing yours.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  They're the ones pushing that this be the defactor standard for web video. If that's the case then they shouldn't attempt to block a party from exercising their patent rights by effectively threatening that if they do so they won't have any access to video on the web. Could you imagine MS saying in their Windows license agreement saying that they can revoke your licenses if you sue them over a patent?
  - archangel_one 16y ago
    Yes, I can imagine that quite clearly. It wouldn't be the most repressive clause in that license agreement.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      AFACT there is no clause in the Windows license that MS could invoke that would prevent you from entering a complete industry. Google's position is literally... screw with us, and if WebM catches on, you can't do video on the internet.
      - vetinari 16y ago