6 ms·

>This thread started with the quote "proprietary codecs vs vp8". That is clearly talking about standards not implementations. A codec is an implementation. htt

• 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... ).
  • eurleif 13y ago
    >and "VP8" is a standard not an implementation (libvpx is an implementation). It's apparently called "libvpx" internally, but the project page refers to it as "the VP8 video codec, a high quality, royalty free, open source codec". http://www.webmproject.org/docs/vp8-sdk/index.html http://www.webmproject.org/docs/vp8-sdk/index.html >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. No one on this thread besides you has said anything about standards. The original comment included "proprietary codecs vs vp8" on a list of positive things Mozilla has done, which also included other implementation-specific things like "javascript performance". >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. Mozilla is, in their own browser, using a codec (read as: implementation) which isn't proprietary. This has two positive effects: it keeps Firefox from becoming proprietary; and it also helps push other browsers to implement the same video format (either using the same codec or not), which helps increase the format's marketshare, meaning that more videos on the Web can be viewed using a non-proprietary codec (implementation). >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. It's not meaningless, it's just somewhat fuzzy. I think you're committing the continuum fallacy here. A piece of software which I can only use if I pay the patent owner a million dollars is clearly proprietary. A piece of software which is more than 20 years old is clearly not proprietary (unless it's proprietary for copyright reasons), since any patents would have expired. In between are some gray areas, but that doesn't invalidate the overall concept. As a practical matter, it's useful to only consider software proprietary on patent grounds if there is a specific patent holder who has asserted a specific patent against it. >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. So, you think it doesn't matter if people in the US can't see videos on the Web without paying for a patent license as long as it doesn't affect you directly? >Nokia have actively brought cases against HTC over some of those patents. Wikipedia mentions that a German court ruled against Nokia.