Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

ianweller.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 85 posts

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#11

Post by wmf »

mortenjorck wrote: post #5
GHFigs wrote: post #2

Mozilla 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.

Mozilla doesn't want to give users the ability to choose proprietary codecs. You're getting "freedom" whether you want it or not.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#12

Post by GHFigs »

mortenjorck wrote: post #5
GHFigs wrote: post #2

Mozilla 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.

Even simpler would be to just expose the native capabilities of the platform. Mac OS X and Windows 7 both support h.264 natively, and to my knowledge Mozilla has actively chosen not to use that support.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#13

Post by Sanguinez »

jws wrote: post #9
Sanguinez wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So it looks like your value your freedom to $0.20.

"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." Then free software would'nt be ablo to be free software. You cannot preserve freedom this way.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#14

Post by novas0x2a »

GHFigs wrote: post #2

Mozilla 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.

I'm not sure you understand the problem here. They do not have a license to use h264, and even if they did, they could not afford to share it with you. Distributing patent-encumbered GPL code violates the spirit of GPL-2 and the letter of GPL-3. If you don't like it, campaign against software patents.

Chromium's approach to this is slightly better, but it's not all there yet. (Speculating here) Google can afford to distribute Chrome binaries with license protection, but they most likely track the total downloads in order to pay the fees. They cannot easily track the source, which is why Chromium doesn't ship with h.264 either. However, it uses ffmpeg, so if your system ffmpeg has h.264, you'll be able to use that (after this is fixed: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21318)

Ideally, that's the approach Mozilla would take, too. If not, as other posts mentioned, the distros that are willing to distribute non-free will eventually solve the problem.

As they say: Patches Welcome.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#15

Post by btucker »

GHFigs wrote: post #12
mortenjorck wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even simpler would be to just expose the native capabilities of the platform. Mac OS X and Windows 7 both support h.264 natively, and to my knowledge Mozilla has actively chosen not to use that support.

This is what I was wondering. If this is true that what we're talking about is linking against proprietary libraries that already exist on the user's machine, then I don't understand the argument against it. By the article's logic they should pull the plug on firefox for windows & mac since they are more "non-free" than h.264.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#16

Post by wmf »

btucker wrote: post #15
GHFigs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even simpler would be to just expose the native capabilities of the platform. Mac OS X and Windows 7 both support h.264 natively, and to my knowledge Mozilla has actively chosen not to use that support.

This is what I was wondering. If this is true that what we're talking about is linking against proprietary libraries that already exist on the user's machine, then I don't understand the argument against it. By the article's logic they should pull the plug on firefox for windows & mac since they are more "non-free" than h.264.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh...

Firefox won't use system codecs because they might be insecure, they might be buggy, and Mozilla wants to encourage Web authors to use Theora.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#17

Post by sandGorgon »

jws wrote: post #9
Sanguinez wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

+1 I think google would happily subsidize the cost of H.264 end-user licenses for the 100 million or so unique visitors that it had in Jan 2009.

But I think it is going to be cheaper for them to spend a 100 million or so and buy out a top-end video codec developer and release the codec as open source.... or did they ?

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#18

Post by GHFigs »

novas0x2a wrote: post #14
GHFigs wrote: post #2

Mozilla 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.

I'm not sure you understand the problem here. They do not have a license to use h264, and even if they did, they could not afford to share it with you. Distributing patent-encumbered GPL code violates the spirit of GPL-2 and the letter of GPL-3. If you don't like it, campaign against software patents. Chromium's approach to this is slightly better, but it's not all there yet. (Speculating here) Google can afford to d…

I'm not sure you understand the problem here.

I do, which is why I am so critical of Mozilla's "solution" to it, which has confused the issue of not being able to ship h.264 support for the reasons you mention with trying to promote a format that (whatever its merits) nobody wants.

Ideally, that's the approach Mozilla would take, too.

Indeed, it would be, but my understanding is that they are unwilling to do so or unable with their current code, due to the dumb (IMHO) decision to pressure people into using Ogg.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#19

Post by kevingadd »

GHFigs wrote: post #18
novas0x2a wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you understand the problem here. They do not have a license to use h264, and even if they did, they could not afford to share it with you. Distributing patent-encumbered GPL code violates the spirit of GPL-2 and the letter of GPL-3. If you don't like it, campaign against software patents. Chromium's approach to this is slightly better, but it's not all there yet. (Speculating here) Google can afford to d…

I'm not sure you understand the problem here. I do, which is why I am so critical of Mozilla's "solution" to it, which has confused the issue of not being able to ship h.264 support for the reasons you mention with trying to promote a format that (whatever its merits) nobody wants. Ideally, that's the approach Mozilla would take, too. Indeed, it would be, but my understanding is that they are unwilling to do so or un…

Suggesting nobody wants Theora/Vorbis is absurd. Clearly someone wants it, as it was created. The important questions are whether it is useful enough to merit inclusion in a browser, and whether it's useful enough to outweigh the downsides. The same questions should be asked about H264.

Re: Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

#20

Post by blasdel »

mortenjorck wrote: post #5
GHFigs wrote: post #2

Mozilla 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.

Mozilla links directly with liboggplay and actively avoids abstracting it in any way. It can't handle any non-ogm container formats, and ogm was intentionally designed not to handle any other codecs.

They're just assholes. If software patents are repealed in the US they'll mourn the loss of the mainstay excuse with which they force earnest activist wankery on their users. If patents were the real obstacle they'd distribute the x264 decoder to/from locales where the patents are unenforceable, and/or fall back on system libraries.

Their present actions serve only to strengthen the Copyright, Patent, and Trademark status quo, because without IP assholery they would neither have a soapbox to stand on nor an enemy to fight.

Post reply on HN