4 ms·

Your definition of "proprietary" is different from everyone else's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_s

by 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.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    >You are, apparently. Why do you think that's what anyone else is talking about? This thread started with the quote "proprietary codecs vs vp8". That is clearly talking about standards not implementations. The very post you replied to talked about standards, standards bodies and ended with "The licence of various implementations […] are irrelevant to its status as proprietary". >H.264 is patent-encumbered. I've no idea what you are getting at here. You seem to still be confusing standards and implementations. Are saying that software that is affected by patent claims must be proprietary? x264 is proprietary? LAME is proprietary? ffmpeg is proprietary? Are you aware of the huge number of extremely broad software patents that have been granted? Just about any non-trivial software will infringe some patent or other.
    - eurleif 13y ago
      >This thread started with the quote "proprietary codecs vs vp8". That is clearly talking about standards not implementations. A codec is an implementation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec "A codec is a device or computer program" >Are saying that software that is affected by patent claims must be proprietary? Yes, I'm saying that if a piece of software cannot be freely distributed and used because of intellectual property laws, it is proprietary. >Are you aware of the huge number of extremely broad software patents that have been granted? Just about any non-trivial software will infringe some patent or other. In practice, it all depends on to what extent the patents are enforced. Real-world usage of "proprietary" reflects practicalities.
      - anon1385 13y ago
        >A codec is an implementation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec "A codec is a device or computer program" and "VP8" is a standard not an implementation (libvpx is an implementation). So the original comment was not clear, but in the context of Mozilla pushing VP8 as video standard for the web it would be very strange if the original poster had meant implementations rather than standards. Unless Mozilla are advocating that everybody use a specific implementation of VP8, but that would be hugely hypocritical and inconsistent after their war against WebDB/SQLite. >Yes, I'm saying that if a piece of software cannot be freely distributed and used because of intellectual property laws, it is proprietary. I think that is a ridiculous definition. That means all VP8 implementations are proprietary[1]. In a world of submarine patents and patent trolls your definition of proprietary is meaningless because any software could become proprietary at any time when a previously unknown or unenforced patent starts being enforced. Additionally, it's a definition that is very location specific - many of these software patents are not valid or recognised in most of the world. I don't have much interest in the US legal system being forced upon me by people obsessed with US patent law when I'm not a US citizen or resident. [1] They are encumbered by these patents: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ and Nokia have actively brought cases against HTC over some of those patents (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/143400898/Nokia-VP8-Infringement-Claim-Chart-for-211-Patent http://www.scribd.com/doc/143400898/Nokia-VP8-Infringement-C... ).
leoc 13y ago
And yet, strange to say, anon1385's definition is routinely used to describe Google Native Client as proprietary; and particularly by Mozilla partisans.
- anon1385 13y ago
  Just to emphasis that, here is the (former) top man Brendan Eich on the topic: >"Proprietary" as in "sole proprietor" is appropriate for a project with zero governance, launched by Google after some incubation closed-source, dominated by Googlers.[1] Which sounds exactly like VP8 to me (even libvpx for that matter). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4634957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4634957

by 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.
- anon1385 13y ago
  >You are, apparently. Why do you think that's what anyone else is talking about? This thread started with the quote "proprietary codecs vs vp8". That is clearly talking about standards not implementations. The very post you replied to talked about standards, standards bodies and ended with "The licence of various implementations […] are irrelevant to its status as proprietary". >H.264 is patent-encumbered. I've no idea what you are getting at here. You seem to still be confusing standards and implementations. Are saying that software that is affected by patent claims must be proprietary? x264 is proprietary? LAME is proprietary? ffmpeg is proprietary? Are you aware of the huge number of extremely broad software patents that have been granted? Just about any non-trivial software will infringe some patent or other.
  - eurleif 13y ago
    >This thread started with the quote "proprietary codecs vs vp8". That is clearly talking about standards not implementations. A codec is an implementation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec "A codec is a device or computer program" >Are saying that software that is affected by patent claims must be proprietary? Yes, I'm saying that if a piece of software cannot be freely distributed and used because of intellectual property laws, it is proprietary. >Are you aware of the huge number of extremely broad software patents that have been granted? Just about any non-trivial software will infringe some patent or other. In practice, it all depends on to what extent the patents are enforced. Real-world usage of "proprietary" reflects practicalities.
    - anon1385 13y ago
      >A codec is an implementation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec "A codec is a device or computer program" and "VP8" is a standard not an implementation (libvpx is an implementation). So the original comment was not clear, but in the context of Mozilla pushing VP8 as video standard for the web it would be very strange if the original poster had meant implementations rather than standards. Unless Mozilla are advocating that everybody use a specific implementation of VP8, but that would be hugely hypocritical and inconsistent after their war against WebDB/SQLite. >Yes, I'm saying that if a piece of software cannot be freely distributed and used because of intellectual property laws, it is proprietary. I think that is a ridiculous definition. That means all VP8 implementations are proprietary[1]. In a world of submarine patents and patent trolls your definition of proprietary is meaningless because any software could become proprietary at any time when a previously unknown or unenforced patent starts being enforced. Additionally, it's a definition that is very location specific - many of these software patents are not valid or recognised in most of the world. I don't have much interest in the US legal system being forced upon me by people obsessed with US patent law when I'm not a US citizen or resident. [1] They are encumbered by these patents: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ and Nokia have actively brought cases against HTC over some of those patents (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/143400898/Nokia-VP8-Infringement-Claim-Chart-for-211-Patent http://www.scribd.com/doc/143400898/Nokia-VP8-Infringement-C... ).

leoc 13y ago

And yet, strange to say, anon1385's definition is routinely used to describe Google Native Client as proprietary; and particularly by Mozilla partisans.

anon1385 13y ago
Just to emphasis that, here is the (former) top man Brendan Eich on the topic: >"Proprietary" as in "sole proprietor" is appropriate for a project with zero governance, launched by Google after some incubation closed-source, dominated by Googlers.[1] Which sounds exactly like VP8 to me (even libvpx for that matter). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4634957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4634957