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

51–60 of 85 posts

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

#51

Post by mieses »

DarkShikari wrote: post #43
mieses wrote: post #39

The number of comments trashing the FOSS position towards video codecs is strange given that it's equally popular to trash the proprietary flash player. Maybe this thread is a statistical anomaly or people are just inconsistent.

What "FOSS position"? The vast majority of people I know in FOSS, both users and developers, could care less about patents. The apparent "FOSS position" comes from a vocal minority, not the majority of FOSS users and developers.

They should care because the H264 patent expires in 2025. If we were looking at a few years then you might be right not to worry. It's odd that MPEG LA supporters are coming out of the woodwork on this issue, seemingly to prevent HTML5 from starting out on the right foot.

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

#52

Post by DarkShikari »

mieses wrote: post #51
DarkShikari wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "FOSS position"? The vast majority of people I know in FOSS, both users and developers, could care less about patents. The apparent "FOSS position" comes from a vocal minority, not the majority of FOSS users and developers.

They should care because the H264 patent expires in 2025. If we were looking at a few years then you might be right not to worry. It's odd that MPEG LA supporters are coming out of the woodwork on this issue, seemingly to prevent HTML5 from starting out on the right foot.

the H264 patent

"The" H.264 patent? I have, sadly enough, the MPEG-LA agreement here, and there have got to be 25 pages at least simply listing patent numbers, with expiry dates ranging from very soon to a long time from now.

MPEG LA supporters

So everyone who is against Mozilla's attempt to force crappy software on us using the excuse of patents is an "MPEG LA supporter"? Some of us simply don't care about patents, as hard as it might be to believe for some.

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

#53

Post by Sanguinez »

ez77 wrote: post #40
Sanguinez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean software freedom, I guess. Personal freedom is greater with BSD than GPL, and with public-domain software than with any of them. Personal freedom includes the right to sell software at $0.20 or $200, and the customer's right to buy it or not. For the record, I'm against software patents, but also against being forced to publish one's code, which incidentally maximizes personal freedom.

Yes I mean software freedom. Well, free software (whether it is GNU/GPL or BSD-like) allow you to sell it. But how could it remain free (as in freedom) if redistribution has strings attached?

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

#54

Post by natmaster »

wmf wrote: post #16
btucker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Mozilla wants to encourage Web authors to use Theora"

That seems to be working so well. Really they're just encouraging users to not use Firefox. The user chose to have those codecs on their system - either by installing and OS that comes with it, or installing the codec itself.

Let the user chose what codecs they want to support.

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

#55

Post by mieses »

DarkShikari wrote: post #52
mieses wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should care because the H264 patent expires in 2025. If we were looking at a few years then you might be right not to worry. It's odd that MPEG LA supporters are coming out of the woodwork on this issue, seemingly to prevent HTML5 from starting out on the right foot.

the H264 patent "The" H.264 patent? I have, sadly enough, the MPEG-LA agreement here, and there have got to be 25 pages at least simply listing patent numbers, with expiry dates ranging from very soon to a long time from now. MPEG LA supporters So everyone who is against Mozilla's attempt to force crappy software on us using the excuse of patents is an "MPEG LA supporter"? Some of us simply don't care about patents ,…

I understand. But you could have a replay of the Unisys GIF situation except that it will last a very long time. Most developers and web services (vimeo, youtube, etc) are only thinking about how to improve their product in the short term. The best short term move is to choose H264. They're free to do what they want. So is Mozilla. Those same web services will screw themselves if they make Mozilla irrelevant. But again, short term thinking.

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

#56

Post by jsz0 »

zokier wrote: post #33
jsz0 wrote: post #24

What about x264? I know there is speculation that x264 wouldn't have much chance to withstand a software patent fight but OGG Theora isn't 100% safe either. If Mozilla is already going down that road they should just adopt x264 and see what happens. Challenge the patent holders to outrage the public and cripple the Internet. That's going to do more for software freedom than sticking their head in the sand.

x264 is a h264 encoder implementation. Mozilla couldn't "just adopt" it, mostly because they have little use of an encoder. Its the decoder what they need.

Ah I see. I must be thinking of something else. I know I've definitely played back h264 video using OSS software with no commercial hackery.

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

#57

Post by Sanguinez »

GHFigs wrote: post #27
Sanguinez wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just depends how much you value your freedom.

Except that's bullshit and you're attempting to paint critics of ham-fisted attempts to promote an ideology through user punishment as not valuing freedom, rather than actually explaining why the dumb move should not be called a dumb move. Let me be clear: I welcome your rebuttal, and I will read it with an open mind. What I will not do, for you, for Mozilla, or any of the multitude in the Free Software movement and…

Why is it bullshit? I never implied anything about you/

How using H.264 would be beneficial to free software and open standards?

This is really about how much you value your freedom. About at what point you will abandon your freedom for any other advantage, such as hardware support (proprietary drivers in the linux kernel for instance) or performance (h.264 vs theora in this case). So this more about being willing to sacrifice a little bit of performance for your freedom than looking for best performances at all costs. Theora is getting continuously improved and is catching up little by little. They may also be some other company releasing some other codecs under free software-friendly licenses, who knows? But in the mean time, what is more important to you (as a user, in general): performance or freedom?

So if you don't care about your freedom, it is understandable you wouldn't care less about theora vs h.264. If you would care a little bit more, you would be ready to compromise on some parts, and if you have a long beard, you wouldn't compromise at all.

And I am also wondering, if mozilla starts accepting patented or proprietary technologies, where would you draw the line? How would you ensure Mozilla's products remain free (as in freedom)

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

#58

Post by DarkShikari »

jsz0 wrote: post #56
zokier wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

x264 is a h264 encoder implementation. Mozilla couldn't "just adopt" it, mostly because they have little use of an encoder. Its the decoder what they need.

Ah I see. I must be thinking of something else. I know I've definitely played back h264 video using OSS software with no commercial hackery.

Of course--ffmpeg's decoder library, libavcodec, supports every format under the sun, including H.264.

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

#59

Post by GHFigs »

kevingadd wrote: post #19
GHFigs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The number of people who care about Theora is small, and the number that care about it primarily for non-ideological reasons (i.e. practical reasons) approaches zero. Compared to the number of Firefox users who view video on the web (which is the group whose concerns we're talking about), I feel I'm not being absurd in referring to the former as "nobody".

Clearly someone wants it, as it was created.

This is very presumptive when talking about an open source project.

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.

There are a lot of directions this could go, but let me make clear that I'm not against supporting Ogg Theora. I'm also not insisting that Mozilla include h.264 support in their products. I'm against limiting support to only Theora on ideological grounds, which is what Mozilla has done. That turns it into a question of whether it's useful and advantageous to actively prevent the use of all other codecs.

Given that h.264 is already the most widely used codec on the web (while Theora is among the least) and that YouTube and Vimeo, two of the largest video sites, have already started supporting it (and not Theora) in , I think it's clearly not in the interests of users to block them from using it.

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

#60

Post by GHFigs »

Sanguinez wrote: post #57
GHFigs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that's bullshit and you're attempting to paint critics of ham-fisted attempts to promote an ideology through user punishment as not valuing freedom, rather than actually explaining why the dumb move should not be called a dumb move. Let me be clear: I welcome your rebuttal, and I will read it with an open mind. What I will not do, for you, for Mozilla, or any of the multitude in the Free Software movement and…

Why is it bullshit? I never implied anything about you/ How using H.264 would be beneficial to free software and open standards? This is really about how much you value your freedom. About at what point you will abandon your freedom for any other advantage, such as hardware support (proprietary drivers in the linux kernel for instance) or performance (h.264 vs theora in this case). So this more about being willing to…

You're still doing exactly what I just said ("attempting to paint critics of [of what Mozilla is doing] as not valuing freedom") with lines like "what is more important to you: performance or freedom?"--as if any dumb move can be absolved by saying you did it for the sake of freedom.

I don't know what to make of most of your second paragraph, as I've made no argument about performance. I'm talking about the simple fact that Firefox users cannot view certain content that is being deployed on the web today (h.264 in ) because Mozilla has chosen to use the size of its user base to "encourage" the adoption of Theora. This is not freedom. This is stupid.

if mozilla starts accepting patented or proprietary technologies

Nobody is saying they have to. There are a half dozen other comments in this thread explaining better than I could that Mozilla could support other codecs without tainting their own products if they chose to. The problem is that they are choosing not to and that hurts users to no good end.

Post reply on HN