Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
1–10 of 85 posts
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#2Mozilla has taken on the responsibility of providing a free-software solution for browsing the web
..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move. Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#3Mozilla has taken on the responsibility of providing a free-software solution for browsing the web ..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move . Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.
It just depends how much you value your freedom.
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#4Mozilla has taken on the responsibility of providing a free-software solution for browsing the web ..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move . Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.
It just depends how much you value your freedom.
I understand the issue, but in practice I worry about the patents that cover H.264 about as much as I do those that cover the PDF spec...which is to say: not at all.
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#5Mozilla has taken on the responsibility of providing a free-software solution for browsing the web ..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move . Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.
There's a relatively simple solution to this that another heavy hitter in the FOSS world has been using for years: Prompt for a "restricted package" install when the user first encounters an h.264 video, similar to how Ubuntu deals with non-FOSS drivers, plugins, and codecs.
It's the best of both worlds; you stay free and you get to be compatible.
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just depends how much you value your freedom.
I understand the issue, but in practice I worry about the patents that cover H.264 about as much as I do those that cover the PDF spec...which is to say: not at all.
How are these comprable? Adobe has a patent agreement that says it won't sue you if you are implementing PDF or PostScript. Sure, it's maybe not absolute freedom, but it is markedly better than the situation with any of the encumbered audio codecs.
I'm not an adobe defender by any means, but the practical consequence of this is that there exists a lot of Free Software that supports PDF and PostScript (like Ghostscript) and ships with all distros. The situation for H.264 is hardly similar.
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#7Mozilla has taken on the responsibility of providing a free-software solution for browsing the web ..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move . Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.
There's a relatively simple solution to this that another heavy hitter in the FOSS world has been using for years: Prompt for a "restricted package" install when the user first encounters an h.264 video, similar to how Ubuntu deals with non-FOSS drivers, plugins, and codecs. It's the best of both worlds; you stay free and you get to be compatible.
RedHat did this, and I was very happy about it at the time, being involved with the Xiph.org projects. The users hated it, but I don't see how to educate users about this any other way.
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just depends how much you value your freedom.
I understand the issue, but in practice I worry about the patents that cover H.264 about as much as I do those that cover the PDF spec...which is to say: not at all.
Ah so if YOU don't worry about, I guess everything is going to be fine :)
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#9Mozilla has taken on the responsibility of providing a free-software solution for browsing the web ..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move . Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.
It just depends how much you value your freedom.
I value watching non-crappy video enough to pay $0.20 for an H.264 license.
I value the runtime on my battery operated devices enough to pay $0.20 for an efficiently decoded format.
(Maybe that is more than $0.20. Depending on volume the H.264 is $0.00, $0.20, or $0.10, but I think there is a base license also required that I can't find. In any event, adding H.264 to a computer probably costs less than half a can of beer.)
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsS...
And remember, I am still allowed to do anything I want with the code. I just have to give MPEG-LA half a can of beer do it.
Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just depends how much you value your freedom.
I understand the issue, but in practice I worry about the patents that cover H.264 about as much as I do those that cover the PDF spec...which is to say: not at all.
A second point I forgot to mention is that I do not know of Adobe suing anyone over standard PDF/PostScript features, but there is a long history of Thompson and all the other audio/video patent holders being very litigious and threatening.
Perhaps no one remembers 8hz-enc or why the LAME project doesn't distribute binaries (or at least didn't for a long time; I've not looked lately). The story for MP3 players wasn't a super happy one either at one time.