5 ms·

>proprietary codecs vs vp8 VP8 is proprietary. I'd appreciate it if downvoters could point me towards the standards body that oversees the VP8 standard. Appar

>proprietary codecs vs vp8 VP8 is proprietary. I'd appreciate it if downvoters could point me towards the standards body that oversees the VP8 standard. Apparently I just missed the news when it was submitted to an independent standards organisation… (This debate makes me appreciate how RMS must feel trying to educate people about the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-freedom)

scrollaway 13y ago
"In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format, and released a specification of the format under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.[6] That same year, Google also released libvpx, the reference implementation of VP8, under a BSD license.[7]"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - syjer 13y ago
    This is quite old: the patent "issue" is more clear, see http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google-mpeg-la-agree-to-royalty-free-terms-for-vp8-video-codec/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google... . There is still an issue with Nokia ( http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ ) but at the moment it looks like that everybody is ignoring them.
  - pgeorgi 13y ago
    Every codec's situation is unclear. MPEG-LA doesn't provide indemnification either, and they would be stupid to do so. As an example, there are license pools for MP3, and companies generally pay them. Yet over the course of several years, German customs cleared out displays with mp3 players at Cebit because their creators didn't know that there's another patent to license. Now, that isn't too bad for someone providing indemnification: It would be a matter of the pool paying that third party, and including that in their future pool fees. "Unfortunately" a patent holder is generally allowed to control distribution entirely (eg refuse to license to any single party they dislike). Indemnification in that case would probably mean reimbursing the costs of development and production (and maybe lost future income).
- anon1385 13y ago
  None of that changes the fact that it is proprietary. Free to use does not mean the same thing as non-proprietary. The definition of VP8 is entirely defined and controlled by a single corporation (Google), not by a standards body. For example XUL is proprietary, even though the specification is available under a CC licence, because it is controlled by a single vendor, not an open vendor-neutral standardisation process. Unless VP8 has been submitted to some standards body that I'm unaware of it remains proprietary. Evidence of such a submission and ratification is the only thing that would be relevant to this discussion. The licence of various implementations, or any patent grants are irrelevant to its status as proprietary.
  - eurleif 13y ago
    Your definition of "proprietary" is different from everyone else's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
    - anon1385 13y ago
      That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. The licence of those implementations has no bearing on the status of the standards themselves. I could write a proprietary, closed source VP8 or H264 encoder and again that would make no difference at all to the status of the standards because it would just be an implementation.
      - eurleif 13y ago
        >That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. You are, apparently. Why do you think that's what anyone else is talking about? >For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. H.264 is patent-encumbered.
        13y ago

scrollaway 13y ago

"In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format, and released a specification of the format under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.[6] That same year, Google also released libvpx, the reference implementation of VP8, under a BSD license.[7]"

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- syjer 13y ago
  This is quite old: the patent "issue" is more clear, see http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google-mpeg-la-agree-to-royalty-free-terms-for-vp8-video-codec/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google... . There is still an issue with Nokia ( http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ ) but at the moment it looks like that everybody is ignoring them.
- pgeorgi 13y ago
  Every codec's situation is unclear. MPEG-LA doesn't provide indemnification either, and they would be stupid to do so. As an example, there are license pools for MP3, and companies generally pay them. Yet over the course of several years, German customs cleared out displays with mp3 players at Cebit because their creators didn't know that there's another patent to license. Now, that isn't too bad for someone providing indemnification: It would be a matter of the pool paying that third party, and including that in their future pool fees. "Unfortunately" a patent holder is generally allowed to control distribution entirely (eg refuse to license to any single party they dislike). Indemnification in that case would probably mean reimbursing the costs of development and production (and maybe lost future income).
anon1385 13y ago
None of that changes the fact that it is proprietary. Free to use does not mean the same thing as non-proprietary. The definition of VP8 is entirely defined and controlled by a single corporation (Google), not by a standards body. For example XUL is proprietary, even though the specification is available under a CC licence, because it is controlled by a single vendor, not an open vendor-neutral standardisation process. Unless VP8 has been submitted to some standards body that I'm unaware of it remains proprietary. Evidence of such a submission and ratification is the only thing that would be relevant to this discussion. The licence of various implementations, or any patent grants are irrelevant to its status as proprietary.
- eurleif 13y ago
  Your definition of "proprietary" is different from everyone else's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
  - anon1385 13y ago
    That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. The licence of those implementations has no bearing on the status of the standards themselves. I could write a proprietary, closed source VP8 or H264 encoder and again that would make no difference at all to the status of the standards because it would just be an implementation.
    - eurleif 13y ago
      >That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. You are, apparently. Why do you think that's what anyone else is talking about? >For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. H.264 is patent-encumbered.
      - 13y ago