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

Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#21

Post by azakai »

notatoad wrote: post #20
slowpoke wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, Skype holds software patents on parts of the algorithm. Even though they said they'd make them avaiable royalty-free, this still means it isn't completely free.

in some ways, a perpetual unrestricted license is better than an unpatented algorithm. The big excuse for not adopting webm was "uncertainty" about the patent situation. If skype has the patents and is giving free licenses, there isn't any uncertainty here, you know that microsoft has no basis to ever sue.

To some (significant) degree, but you never know that no one else has patents on a technology. That's exactly what is so messed up with software patents.

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#23

Post by teraflop »

azakai wrote: post #10
slowpoke wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, Skype holds software patents on parts of the algorithm. Even though they said they'd make them avaiable royalty-free, this still means it isn't completely free.

In what way is using a technology not free, if you are given a royalty-free license to use the patents on it? (Honest question, I don't know what you mean here.)

Here are the terms of the license, I think: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1602/

Notice that permission is only given for implementations that comply with the specification. (And if Skype ever infringes any of your patents, you can't sue them without losing the rights to Opus.)

Whether or not you agree with Skype's moral right to its patents, this is clearly a limitation of developers' freedom. Imagine if HTTP were covered by this kind of patent: anyone could implement a client or server, but developing a backward-incompatible extension like SPDY would be off-limits. If you were to take the license terms literally, even releasing a buggy implementation that doesn't precisely follow all of the requirements of the spec would make you liable.

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#24

Post by azakai »

teraflop wrote: post #23
azakai wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is using a technology not free, if you are given a royalty-free license to use the patents on it? (Honest question, I don't know what you mean here.)

Here are the terms of the license, I think: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1602/ Notice that permission is only given for implementations that comply with the specification. (And if Skype ever infringes any of your patents, you can't sue them without losing the rights to Opus.) Whether or not you agree with Skype's moral right to its patents, this is clearly a limitation of developers' freedom. Imagine if HTTP were…

Thanks for the link.

> Notice that permission is only given for implementations that comply with the specification.

That's typical - otherwise, you could implement some almost arbitrary protocol but say it was this one (and use a small amount of it) and claim that you were shielded from Skype's patents. The patent license is just for this particular codec.

Of course there are issues with this, it's been debated a lot regarding the Java and C# licenses, which also have similar clauses for similar reasons. The motivation for them is reasonable, but the details can be tricky.

> (And if Skype ever infringes any of your patents, you can't sue them without losing the rights to Opus.)

Personally I think that's fine. If you want to engage in a full-on patent war, you should not benefit from a patent license like this.

> Whether or not you agree with Skype's moral right to its patents, this is clearly a limitation of developers' freedom. Imagine if HTTP were covered by this kind of patent: anyone could implement a client or server, but developing a backward-incompatible extension like SPDY would be off-limits. If you were to take the license terms literally, even releasing a buggy implementation that doesn't precisely follow all of the requirements of the spec would make you liable.

If a single bug makes you liable, obviously it is unfair, etc, but that's exactly where the details of the license come into play - I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea if the terms here are reasonable or not.

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#25

Post by marquis »

te_chris wrote: post #17
simonster wrote: post #2

Those listening test results are impressive. I wonder how it performs at higher bitrates.

It said in the article that it was "percptually lossless" or similar. I'm very, very intrigued.

There are examples here which worked out-of-the-box for me in Chrome:

http://www.octasic.com/en/tech/opus_audio_codec.php

In my listening opinion with very good isolated headphones: the music is very good but you can hear the drop-off of the highs in the vocal examples. It's good but not good enough for 'professional' use at the lower bitrates.

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#26

Post by protomyth »

ajasmin wrote: post #13
wmf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Apple's lame excuse of unknown patents apply to all technologies?

Potentially yes. But Microsoft and Apple not supporting VP8 & WebM probably has more to do with these companies being part of MPEG LA (a firm which sell licenses for H.264 related patents).

I think Microsoft and Apple are more into known quantities and what is implemented in hardware.

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#27

Post by alayne »

wmf wrote: post #16
ajasmin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potentially yes. But Microsoft and Apple not supporting VP8 & WebM probably has more to do with these companies being part of MPEG LA (a firm which sell licenses for H.264 related patents).

If Apple was opposed to Vorbis, I imagine they would be equally opposed to any new audio codec. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-Dec...

That seems like a leap. Ogg codecs were always questionable to me because they are owned by xiph.org, rather than some other more widely accepted standards body.

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#28

Post by polshaw »

te_chris wrote: post #17
simonster wrote: post #2

Those listening test results are impressive. I wonder how it performs at higher bitrates.

It said in the article that it was "percptually lossless" or similar. I'm very, very intrigued.

They mention 256kbps in regards to that, at which point all of vorbis, aac and mp3 (lame) are 'perceptually lossless', so it wouldn't be much new. While it is hard to tell (because tests at higher bitrates don't really work out/ produce winners), it seems that any sonic advantage held is at the lower bitrate end.

Re: Firefox Beta 15 supports the new Opus audio format

#30

Post by smallblacksun »

slowpoke wrote: post #6
tobylane wrote: post #4

I went into the article thinking why isn't OGG good enough, and the xkcd joke about 15 different standards. I left pleased about this new standard (from an advert, any downsides?) but need some patent assurances. If Mozilla are happy will everyone be?

Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, Skype holds software patents on parts of the algorithm. Even though they said they'd make them avaiable royalty-free, this still means it isn't completely free.

There is also the question of whether the statements from Skype about patents are still true given their purchase by Microsoft.
Post reply on HN