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

61–70 of 85 posts

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

#61

Post by heresy »

mieses wrote: post #55
DarkShikari wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aga…

How will they screw themselves by making Mozilla irrelevant?

It's not like Mozilla in any way had any influence on their websites becoming popular, nor will they be affected at all if browser user agents change from Firefox -> Chrome.

Interesting leap of logic.

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

#63

Post by GHFigs »

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.

Or maybe those two stances are in alignment? Consider:

The submission is a reaction to a reaction to YouTube and Vimeo now supporting HTML5 , which enables users of Safari and Chrome to use those sites without Flash. Today, right now.

Firefox users, on the other hand, must continue to use Flash, due to Mozilla's decision to ask the world to revolve around them.

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

#64

Post by Sanguinez »

GHFigs wrote: post #60
Sanguinez wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

There is a huge difference between "not valuing freedom" and "valuing advantage X more than freedom". This is not all or nothing. This is not a case of "you are either with us or against us".

Repeating "stupid" and "dumb" over and over will not make it real. They don't restrict anyone either, they just stick to their values.

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

#65

Post by GHFigs »

Sanguinez wrote: post #64
GHFigs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

There is a huge difference between "not valuing freedom" and "valuing advantage X more than freedom". This is not all or nothing. This is not a case of "you are either with us or against us". Repeating "stupid" and "dumb" over and over will not make it real. They don't restrict anyone either, they just stick to their values.

For the third time, you're trying to twist this into something about how much I value freedom, rather than actually talking about the actual thing that Mozilla actually does, which is the thing I refer to as being a dumb move.

They don't restrict anyone either

They do. They have chosen to implement in such a way that users are unable to use it in conjunction with any other format than Theora. Not because users asked for it, not because it's useful, but because they want to push Theora.

they just stick to their values

I'm not passing judgement on their values. I'm passing judgement on their actions.

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

#66

Post by ubernostrum »

Sanguinez wrote: post #53
ez77 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

But how could it remain free (as in freedom) if redistribution has strings attached?

This is the problem right here; you used a term without bothering to mention that you're using a very specific definition of that term. In your view "freedom" does not mean maximizing my rights to do things with the software; instead, it involves deliberately limiting my rights in order to force me to pass along (your definition of) "freedom" to others.

There are definitions of freedom, many surprisingly common, which do not include that little quirk, and you'll find that "give up some of your freedom for someone else's sake" is, to many people, like saying "pay higher taxes so someone else can benefit".

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

#67

Post by Sanguinez »

Sanguinez wrote: post #53
ez77 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just to be clear. From OSI (see http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd ): "1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

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

#68

Post by notauser »

blasdel wrote: post #28
wmf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's going to pay the licensing fees? If you fork, you probably don't get access to the Google money spigot.

Apple (QT) and Microsoft (DirectShow) pay the license fees when they distribute their Operating Systems. Nobody gives a shit about distributing the x264 source code, and only the fosstards even have a hiccup about distributing binaries, especially from hosts outside the US. Ubuntu may not ship with the gstreamer plugin, but it does prompt you to download it the first time it's asked for by an application.

- The 'fosstards' built and shared a good deal of the ecosystem on which the Internet you are using runs.

- A large chunk of the rest is directly or indirectly enabled, possible or cheaper thanks to them.

- Every one I have met in person has been polite about their goals, and while they base them on fundamental principles I don't quite agree with, their reasoning as based on those principles is rock solid.

As such I think they deserve a little more respect than being called names, especially here. When was the last time you saw a start-up that used no FOSS software?

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

#69

Post by Sanguinez »

GHFigs wrote: post #65
Sanguinez wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between "not valuing freedom" and "valuing advantage X more than freedom". This is not all or nothing. This is not a case of "you are either with us or against us". Repeating "stupid" and "dumb" over and over will not make it real. They don't restrict anyone either, they just stick to their values.

For the third time, you're trying to twist this into something about how much I value freedom, rather than actually talking about the actual thing that Mozilla actually does, which is the thing I refer to as being a dumb move. They don't restrict anyone either They do. They have chosen to implement in such a way that users are unable to use it in conjunction with any other format than Theora. Not because users asked…

Their actions come from their values. And they happen to value an open web and free software. So yes, it is actually useful.

And then, how would you qualify apple by not supporting theora in safari? They are keeping their users from watching videos from wikipedia. You still end up with a big mess.

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

#70

Post by geocar »

heresy wrote: post #61
mieses wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aga…

How will they screw themselves by making Mozilla irrelevant? It's not like Mozilla in any way had any influence on their websites becoming popular, nor will they be affected at all if browser user agents change from Firefox -> Chrome. Interesting leap of logic.

Well they do actually.

Right now: Firefox is the only platform-neutral web browser. Firefox on Linux and Firefox on Windows are supposed to be the same browser.

Using OS codecs changes that, which means a Windows shop can test Windows browsers, but no (reasonable) way to test Linux browsers.

So long as there is a platform-neutral browser, browsers have to work similarly.

If you remember: Microsoft IE for mac and for windows operate so differently that they must be developed for as separate browsers, and yet banks regularly told people to use IE (despite the fact that IE on the mac didn't work either- and the bank programmers had no way to test it).

Content producers earn on eyeballs, and if 10-50% of their users aren't seeing what they want them to see, they'll adapt: browser sniff, flash fallback, or whatever it takes.

As a result, video will remain complicated. Maybe Apple and Microsoft can be pressured into supporting OGG, or maybe their users can be prompted to get higher quality video by downloading some codec or plugin. Maybe a technology like ChromeFrame will become popular.

Post reply on HN