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

No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 168 posts

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#41

Post by tomlin »

commandar wrote: post #18

I was discussing this with some people yesterday. I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash. The fact of the matter is that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard and isn'…

> I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash.

You just simply cannot deny the audacity of Gruber's comments about WebM/H.264/Flash. They are completely self-serving.

I think if Gruber allowed comments on his blog, or had to talk about WebM vs. H.264 in an engagement, he'd have trouble shoving the pro-H.264 side of this debate down people's throats.

While he occasionally makes some valid points, Gruber tends to pick and chose which articles to post that'll support his esoteric rhetoric.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#42

Post by acgourley »

tomlin wrote: post #41
commandar wrote: post #18

I was discussing this with some people yesterday. I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash. The fact of the matter is that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard and isn'…

> I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash. You just simply cannot deny the audacity of Gruber's comments about WebM/H.264/Flash. They are completely self-serving. I think…

I agree Google is being self serving, but I also believe in this case their interests align with the average internet consumer.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#43

Post by jasonlotito »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #35
jasonlotito wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google supports Adobe Flash, and has dropped support for Google's implementation of H.264 inside Chrome. One is a plugin. One was not. I agree with your comment, and I find the Flash/H.264/Chrome argument to be childish at best.

If an Apple or Microsoft blogger finds themselves taking a more hardline stance than the FSF, it's easy to conclude that they're trolling/astroturfing. However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. People, including Google, have been pushing HTML5 via various plugins, fallbacks and shims for a good while (e.g. Chrome Frame, Google G…

> However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile.

Which doesn't challenge anything I said. In fact, you can remove plugins from you browser, including Flash, right now.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#44

Post by 9oliYQjP »

spiffworks wrote: post #2

"free standards" I'm glad somebody finally figured out how to accurately describe webm. All this hand-waving talk of 'openness' and 'open standards' was debate poison.

Except it's not "free" in the Free software sense. Google specifically addresses why they didn't use a GPL license but rather BSD. They want to promote WebM in proprietary, closed, products.

http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ "One of the goals of having this code licensed as liberally as possible is to encourage adoption by as many users as possible. This includes both proprietary and free software. Using the GPL license would not be a good match for this goal."

The WebM issue is far from black and white. I still haven't figured out which side I agree with more. What I do know is that a lot of people are arguing tactics. This is a battle between corporations and everybody should be taking 100 steps back to try to figure out the strategies at work on both sides.

Edit: What I'm alluding to in my last point is a lot like Paul Graham's point in this essay from a while back: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#45

Post by bryanlarsen »

rimantas wrote: post #9
bryanlarsen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this position. Dropping H.264 is aligned with the FSF's goals, so of course they should support it. To me, Google's move is an indication that Google will eventually drop and/or downgrade Flash support. You encourage institutions to do the right thing by applauding when they do the right thing. Not by saying "you suck because you didn't take it far enough". You say "Good move doing X. And when you…

I fail to see how this move is good for end users.

The FSF has always been about the long term. This move is actually much less short-term user-hostile than many of their other moves.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#46

Post by ZeroGravitas »

sudont wrote: post #40
spiffworks wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The webm spec is frozen, and all patents are irrevocably licensed. Webm is not 'controlled' by Google.

The patent thing is just FUD by Apple proponents. But, I won't support WebM until it's an ISO standard, frozen is just a promise at this point. Their own site says "dedicated to developing a high-quality..." which, taken literally, means that the project is still underway. Also listed on the front page: "Submit patches and improvements" Yet again, saying that it's a work in progress.

The encoder is being improved, and the decoder is being optimised for speed on various platforms but the spec defines what the decoder does and it was effectively frozen as soon as Google converted a bunch of Youtube videos and got hardware manufacturers on board. Any change to the format would break existing content (most of Youtube) and shipping hardware.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#47

Post by kmfrk »

commandar wrote: post #18

I was discussing this with some people yesterday. I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash. The fact of the matter is that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard and isn'…

I generally like Gruber and think he tends to weigh his thoughts and arguments very well - but I still can't forgive him for buying MPEG LA's PR release[1] hook and sink[2]. Since when has it been a good idea to take a press release at face value[3]?

He hasn't recanted this complete acquiescence, so I am under the impression that he sincerely believes them - and only on the grounds of that single release.

Maybe he was biased, too cute for his own good, had a brain fart, or is too stubborn to accede. I really don't know, but this is one case where I can't really blame Gruber haters for framing his writing and philosophy in a certain way.

[1]: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en

[2]: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/26/h264

[3]: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/08/27/free-as-in-smokescree...

    (Fixed a typo: "thought" to "thoughts". Don't read anything into it!)

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#48

Post by bryanlarsen »

sudont wrote: post #40
spiffworks wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The webm spec is frozen, and all patents are irrevocably licensed. Webm is not 'controlled' by Google.

The patent thing is just FUD by Apple proponents. But, I won't support WebM until it's an ISO standard, frozen is just a promise at this point. Their own site says "dedicated to developing a high-quality..." which, taken literally, means that the project is still underway. Also listed on the front page: "Submit patches and improvements" Yet again, saying that it's a work in progress.

The fact that the standard is frozen is not incompatible with them improving their implementation.

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#49

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jasonlotito wrote: post #43
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an Apple or Microsoft blogger finds themselves taking a more hardline stance than the FSF, it's easy to conclude that they're trolling/astroturfing. However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. People, including Google, have been pushing HTML5 via various plugins, fallbacks and shims for a good while (e.g. Chrome Frame, Google G…

> However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. Which doesn't challenge anything I said. In fact, you can remove plugins from you browser, including Flash, right now.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you about Flash and then going off on a tangent without making it clear I was meaning a different "plugin" argument. I was referring to coverage such as:

So Much For Standards, Google Says WebM Plugins Coming Soon For Safari And IE9

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/14/webm-plugins/

Re: No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

#50

Post by _delirium »

cletus wrote: post #29
spiffworks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the most critical point, which is "This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations." And that is what it is all about. H.264 imposes end-user licenses and if it gets entrenched, freely redistributable browsers would lose. The argument against dropping H.264 is basically "why swit…

> "This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations." According to the FSF's definition of software freedom. The FSF has quite a radical view in this regard. A Microsoft exec once described the GPL as "viral' [1] and it's a fair point. Many view licenses like MIT and Apache as being more fre…

> So it would be more accurate to say that H.264 is incompatible with the FSF's idea of software freedom.

It depends on how you define "compatible", but H.264 is only sort of compatible with MIT-style licensing as well. It's compatible in the sense that, if you start with MIT-licensed software, you can slap on the required H.264 license and not violate any laws (MIT-licensed software can be relicensed under more restrictive terms). But it's incompatible in the sense that you can't actually choose to ship your software under the MIT license and the MIT license alone. In that sense, H.264's license is viral: any software that supports H.264 in any form must incorporate the the H.264 license.

Post reply on HN