Live data from Hacker News

Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

blogs.fsfe.org

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#101
post #33

All video codecs are covered by patents. All the popular ones, maybe. But MPEG-1 is over twenty years old, so unless there is a submarine patent out there, all the patents on it have already expired. Likewise, most aspects of MPEG-2 should be freed up within a decade. Even H.264 will eventually be unencumbered, given enough time.

On2 had a pile of active patents covering VP3, which they granted irrevocable royalty-free licenses to when they abandoned it to become Theora.

Nobody's ever done codec development without either filing a ton of patents or at least publishing rigorous documentation to establish prior art (Dirac). Some of those patents may no longer be in force, but they still exist.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#102
post #19

Props to Steve to actually answer to this open letter, but i think he could have put a little more effort into it, sounds like he has no confidence in open source. I wish apple would be a little more involved in open source.

I wish apple would be a little more involved in open source.

hopefully they keep the LLVM team well-funded and give them good freedoms.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#103
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a specification? I think "de facto standard" is a more appropriate phrase for Flash.

Yes, there is ( http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/ ). It is even available gratis (H.264 specification is not).

Flash isn't an open standard by any useful definition.

Sure they specified the container format and data structures (just like with the MS Office formats), but everybody had figured that part out a long time ago because it's obvious and easy to capitalize on by developing an extractor. The runtime APIs are incredibly hard to reverse-engineer, comprise the vast bulk of the Flash implementation, and are the entire reason for the plugin's instability.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#104
post #41
post #26

While I agree with the spirit of the message to Steve, the attack on Apple not sharing back open source software modifications is out of place. Darwin is open source. WebKit is open source and actively developed by Apple, giving competitors the ability to quickly catch up with one of the iPhone's biggest advantages. Apple is also the chief contributor to LLVM.

Webkit is open-source because the people who wrote it (KDE devs) put it under the LGPL. Apple was playing catch-up, and used the best code base they could to get started. They aren't philanthropists, they are just (grudgingly) abiding by the license of the software they are building on.

Macruby is open source. Apple was under no obligation to open source it, yet they have...

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He probably means H.264 profiles. iPhone (and Android phones) can decode only certain profiles (Baseline), and up to certain levels (depending on resolution). Even hardware assisted decoding with PC graphics cards can accelerate only up to certain level (usually high@4.1, but some nvidias can decode high@5). The rest is more complex than hardware assisted decoders are able to decode and pure software codec has to be…

iPhone supports High profile just fine.

IPhone does not support high profile by any stretch of imagination. Why don't you go and check Apple documentation? There's a technote for that.

Or just try playing high@ video on iphone.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#107
post #31
post #3

"A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now." That's kind of scary.

Google purchased the creators (On2 Technologies) of the basis (VP3) of Theora. http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/04/google-will-open-so... Now, just because you create something doesn't mean it doesn't infringe on someone's patent (read: it could infringe a patent). However, google presumably did some serious due-diligence before forking over their measly $133M, especially on the patent position. That doesn't mak…

At which point Google gets to find out what patents VP8 infringes.

Ballsy move.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#109
post #61
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I thought it was obvious. Perhaps I should rephrase it: All for-profit companies contribute to open-source because it benefits them.

Everyone (businesses and individuals alike) who contributes to open-source does so because it benefits them.
Post reply on HN