Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Le samedi 24 mars 2007 à 09:29 +1100, Andrew Donnellan a écrit : On 3/24/07, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignoring patents can be dangerous, though. If you get sued and the suing party can prove you knew of those patents you can get punished even harder AFAIK (IANAL!). In case of Debian vs. MPEG they could simply point to the mailing lists where the various problems with patents were discussed. But are the MPEG patentors *likely* to sue Debian? If Debian was sued over the MPEG patents, imagine what Slashdot and Digg would do to them - it wouldn't be great PR. These people don't care about Slashdot, really. Now, we should at least go on ignoring blatantly bogus patents, like those on MP3/MPEG-4 decoding. As for encoding, it would probably require a more careful reading of the patents before enabling it. Plus, we don't need as many encoding stuff as decoding in the archive. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Florian Weimer schrieb: * Maik Merten: img gives clear semantics: It's an image. Animated GIF, anyone? Still an image as the usual GIF animations aren't exactly qualifying as true films. video gives clear semantics: Video. Just because something is labled as video, it's semantics aren't suddenly clear. But it's far more specific than object and exposes a streamlined API for video usages. Anyway, I guess the why? question is better delt with on the whatwg mailing list. Personally I don't really care if it's object, video, streamingmedia or whatever as long as the recommended functionality is still implementable in truly free software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Andrew Donnellan schrieb: But are the MPEG patentors *likely* to sue Debian? If Debian was sued over the MPEG patents, imagine what Slashdot and Digg would do to them - it wouldn't be great PR. In case of MP3 one of the patent holders *did* take action against free MP3 encoders (the Fraunhofer institute did send a lot of nasty letters). Personally I think the question is: Do you want to live on a minefield? There may be companies out there that love pointing out that Linux does not respect interlectual property - and they may lobby a patent infringement lawsuit. In any case the free software community has more to loose (credibility) than a suing patent holder (well, who cares for Slashdot if money can be made?). As long as this mad patent system is active the free software community should make as little obvious licensing mistakes as possible. Using MPEG technology without paying fees is something pretty obvious, I'd say. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Sam Morris schrieb: It's probably more accurate to say that no matter what the standard says, Microsoft will ignore it and only implement Windows Media formats, which everyone will use, and we'll be screwed. :( Microsoft is not part of WHATWG. Having a free video format in browsers like Firefox and Opera (or Safari, if that's what you like) is a good thing no matter what. Once Microsoft implements video (that may take a long time, they're not really fast adopting new standards that are not their own) there may be enough content out there to make them look not so clever if they don't support the baseline format that is long since in use (well, that didn't stop Microsoft in the past, though) Anyway, even if Microsoft joins the party with Windows Media only the free software community has a common interchange format in place for their own web-video needs (how many of you use the Microsoft Internet Explorer?). Taken that e.g. Mozilla and the KHTML team aren't able to build browsers with integrated (that's what video is for: Video without plugins) MPEG4 support without the appended patent licenses restricting the freedom of distribution it's worth to try to get a free format into as many browsers as possible. Here in Germany (according to what stats you trust) the Mozilla based browsers have a market share beyond 30%. If Mozilla happens to support a free format but Microsoft decides to use Windows Media content providers most likely need to provide a free codec version of their content anyway - and that'd mean Debian users can enjoy at least some of the content. No matter what: Having Mozilla and Opera support a free format is good in any case. If something proprietary gets recommended Debian can only lose. If a free format is in place Debian users can at least watch parts of the content no matter what Microsoft does. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On 3/24/07, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taken that e.g. Mozilla and the KHTML team aren't able to build browsers with integrated (that's what video is for: Video without plugins) MPEG4 support without the appended patent licenses restricting the freedom of distribution it's worth to try to get a free format into as many browsers as possible. Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag video is completely orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent embed tag or whatever internally... Most (all?) program that manipulate video/audio data do so via plugins. That's because it's easier that way than trying to build support for every odd format someone might want to use into your binary... No matter what: Having Mozilla and Opera support a free format is good in any case. If something proprietary gets recommended Debian can only lose. If a free format is in place Debian users can at least watch parts of the content no matter what Microsoft does. Ofcourse, it'd be good for people to be able to ship a standards compliant browser without shipping non-free components, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a plugin or not... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag video is completely orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent embed tag or whatever internally... The video tag is supposed to offer first class support for video content just like img usually supports JPEG and GIF in a way so content providers can rely on it. To the end user it shouldn't matter if video is transformed to embed on-the-fly. Most (all?) program that manipulate video/audio data do so via plugins. That's because it's easier that way than trying to build support for every odd format someone might want to use into your binary... Albeit the video functionality may be implemented using a plugin the talk over at WHATWG is about native support for video. That means that browser packages have to come with at least one codec (no matter if it's hardwired into the browser itself or seperated into an external module). This doesn't change the possibilty that if Mozilla ends up supporting a non-free format in their official builds Debian may not be able to ship a browser offering the same feature set, leaving Debian users in the dust when it comes to first class web video. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:26 +0100, Maik Merten wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag video is completely orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent embed tag or whatever internally... The video tag is supposed to offer first class support for video content just like img usually supports JPEG and GIF in a way so content providers can rely on it. To the end user it shouldn't matter if video is transformed to embed on-the-fly. I thought that HTML was going in the other direction--deprecating img in favour of the already-existing and perfectly logical object. I really can't see what the point of this video tag is in the first place. -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:39:34PM +, Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:26 +0100, Maik Merten wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag video is completely orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent embed tag or whatever internally... The video tag is supposed to offer first class support for video content just like img usually supports JPEG and GIF in a way so content providers can rely on it. To the end user it shouldn't matter if video is transformed to embed on-the-fly. I thought that HTML was going in the other direction--deprecating img in favour of the already-existing and perfectly logical object. I really can't see what the point of this video tag is in the first place. I have not followed the latest evolutions of the thing, but the deprecation of img in favour of object may have been an xhtml2 goal, while video might be an html5 thingy... Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Sam Morris schrieb: I thought that HTML was going in the other direction--deprecating img in favour of the already-existing and perfectly logical object. I really can't see what the point of this video tag is in the first place. Over at WHATWG it seems most people thinkg object is badly broken in basically all implementations and that it's giving poor semantics anyway. If you find an object in your DOM you know basically nothing about the nature of it. It could be an image, video, audio or even text. As such it doesn't help to structure the document into semantic units (p/p vs. br and font/b/i etc. vs. CSS styling). img gives clear semantics: It's an image. video gives clear semantics: Video. audio well, you can extrapolate ;) So the current trend seems to move away from using object as a media kitchen sink as it degrades HTML to simply being a thing to glue other things on without giving an easy overview of what has been put onto the page. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
so what can we do to voice our support? (Re: video codecs in HTML 5)
Hi, added -project to to: as its more appropriate there :) On Friday 23 March 2007 18:26, Steve Greenland wrote: That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4 support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed, again. If we (the Free Software community) can get Ogg-Theora listed as the base requirement (or recommendation), then we have a small chance of promoting a free codec for widespread use. First of all, thanks to Maik for bringing this up here! So despite the technical and philosophical details whether we should ignore patents or whatnot, what can we do to voice our support for a standard with mandates free codecs instead of propietary ones? (Which IMO is quite obvious.) So how can Debian make an official statement? Do we have to wait until the end of the DPL elections? (April 8th) Maik, whats the timeline in this discussion? And hmm, unfortunatly WHATWG is not affiliated with W3C, which as a nice patent policy... :-( But we can use this as another argument :) See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ - summary at http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary.html regards, Holger pgpH4x1wTxwOR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: so what can we do to voice our support? (Re: video codecs in HTML 5)
Holger Levsen schrieb: First of all, thanks to Maik for bringing this up here! Well, I'm a user of free software so this topic is in my very interest ;) I totally missed you already brought this to the project mailing list - I fired another mail to debian-project before noticing that. Sorry for the spam. I propose moving the whole discussion to debian-project as it's really mostly a political thing (beh, patents over and over again) and not so much a technical thing developers are interested in. So despite the technical and philosophical details whether we should ignore patents or whatnot, what can we do to voice our support for a standard with mandates free codecs instead of propietary ones? (Which IMO is quite obvious.) So how can Debian make an official statement? Do we have to wait until the end of the DPL elections? (April 8th) Maik, whats the timeline in this discussion? I'm not aware of any deadline up until a set of formats has to be chosen. I think there's room for action until the WHATWG 1.0 spec is final - no idea when that'll happen. I think a sensible goal would be to just defend the current wording of the WHATWG working draft, which happens to elevate the free Ogg codecs to a SHOULD be supported state. It has been proposed to REQUIRE browsers to support those formats, but that has no real chance of happening because the WHATWG is also targeted at platforms that may not happen to be able to support the Ogg codecs (or any other multimedia format). SHOULD is as good as it'll ever get IMO. So what has to be done to preserve the current wording? Somehow Apple needs to be convinced that it's acceptable for them to no demand to kill it. They are part of the MPEG industry and their motivation seems to be clear: They obviously may want to feed their own horse. Simply overrunning the whatwg list with well-spirited, but unofficial postings may be ineffective (they may simply stop listening). What we need is an official and polite inquiry that sheds some light onto the position of the free software world - and that would be (amongst other things) We want to stay free and we want our citizens to be first class citizens on the web. (If someone knows a good contact to the FSF: They may be interested to see free formats getting more widely deployed, too.) And hmm, unfortunatly WHATWG is not affiliated with W3C, which as a nice patent policy... :-( But we can use this as another argument :) See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ - summary at http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary.html I think the WHATWG proposal have a good chance of becoming official W3C standards over time. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
* Maik Merten: img gives clear semantics: It's an image. Animated GIF, anyone? video gives clear semantics: Video. Does it begin to run automatically? Can be paused? Saved? What happens if there are two videos on the same page? Are they synchronized? Which one gets to play the audio? Is there any UI around the video which takes away space? Just because something is labled as video, it's semantics aren't suddenly clear. As for the motivation for the tag, I can only speculate. A lot of webpages nowadays use flash video with custom-written player controls, which does create problems for indexing and archival. But videos with a Save As... context menu aren't in the interests of the content distributors, I guess. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
video codecs in HTML 5
Hi, I'm new to this list, so hello. I'm not a Debian developer, but I think I should bring something to your attention that may impact badly on Debian. The WHATWG ( http://www.whatwg.org/ - that's mostly Apple, Opera and Mozilla) are currently discussing an extension to HTML - the video element. The basic plan is that browsers can embed and play video content without the need of a plugin. Because of this browsers need to ship with at least one video and one audio codec. Thanks to the free nature of the Ogg formats the current draft ( http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video ) reads | 3.14.7.1. Video and audio codecs for video elements | | User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container | formats. | | User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as | well as the Ogg container format. [THEORA] [VORBIS] [OGG] This basically means the free Ogg formats, which are included in Debian already, form a basic set of codecs that are recommended to be supported by all browsers. Recently Apple joined the discussion and questioned if the Ogg formats should get such a recommendation ( http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html ). The following discussion implies Apple wants to see MPEG4 being used for embedded video in browsers. These codecs are not free (they demand a fee for it) and restrict distribution of software containing them. This would mean Debian may have to strip support for video from all shipped browsers. That would mean many Debian users can't legally access parts of the web. I think it could help if someone from Debian could join the discussion and summarizes the issues that may arise from using non-free codecs in web browsers. Thanks, Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 12:41 +0100, Maik Merten a écrit : | User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as | well as the Ogg container format. [THEORA] [VORBIS] [OGG] This basically means the free Ogg formats, which are included in Debian already, form a basic set of codecs that are recommended to be supported by all browsers. Recently Apple joined the discussion and questioned if the Ogg formats should get such a recommendation ( http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html ). The following discussion implies Apple wants to see MPEG4 being used for embedded video in browsers. These codecs are not free (they demand a fee for it) and restrict distribution of software containing them. Maybe it would be a good idea to push h.264 now the related patents have been invalidated. It provides a much better compression level than Ogg Theora. This would mean Debian may have to strip support for video from all shipped browsers. That would mean many Debian users can't legally access parts of the web. Fortunately not. We have free MPEG-4 decoders, thanks. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Josselin Mouette schrieb: Maybe it would be a good idea to push h.264 now the related patents have been invalidated. It provides a much better compression level than Ogg Theora. I didn't hear anything of H.264 related patents having been invalidated (by what court? In what country?). To my knowledge there's a multitude of patents being connected with H.264. The MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License includes essential patents owned by Canon Inc.; CIF Licensing, LLC; Competitive Technologies, Inc.; DAEWOO Electronics Corporation; France Télécom, société anonyme; Fujitsu Limited; GE Technology Development, Inc.; Hitachi, Ltd.; KDDI Corporation*; Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.; LG Electronics Inc.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Microsoft Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.; PantechCuritel Communications, Inc.; Robert Bosch GmbH; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.; Sedna Patent Services, LLC; Sharp Corporation; Siemens AG; Sony Corporation; Telenor ASA; Toshiba Corporation; and Victor Company of Japan, Limited. http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/ I find it hard to believe all patents have been been invalidated. Fortunately not. We have free MPEG-4 decoders, thanks. I don't consider this to be true. Can you give a source supporting your theory? Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 14:11, Maik Merten a écrit : Fortunately not. We have free MPEG-4 decoders, thanks. I don't consider this to be true. Can you give a source supporting your theory? Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive.. I think you are missunderstanding his point, because a patent is not directly related to the freeness of the code. If we were to remove all software that is subject ot patent threats, we would remove most of our archive I fear... Romain
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Romain Beauxis schrieb: Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive.. I think you are missunderstanding his point, because a patent is not directly related to the freeness of the code. If we were to remove all software that is subject ot patent threats, we would remove most of our archive I fear... To legally use MPEG4 you have to pay fees. Not only is MPEG4 encumbered by patents, they're enforced, too. Same for MP3. To my knowledge no MPEG patents are installed by default on Debian - for good reasons. Albeit the license of the decoder source code may be free the patent claims prevent that code to be really free. Although the MPEG-LA isn't chasing single end-users they're definately going after wide-scale distribution of their coding methods without a proper license. This effectively makes those codecs non-free. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 14:46, Maik Merten a écrit : Romain Beauxis schrieb: Well, check for mpeg4 decoders in main archive.. I think you are missunderstanding his point, because a patent is not directly related to the freeness of the code. If we were to remove all software that is subject ot patent threats, we would remove most of our archive I fear... To legally use MPEG4 you have to pay fees. Not only is MPEG4 encumbered by patents, they're enforced, too. Same for MP3. To my knowledge no MPEG patents are installed by default on Debian - for good reasons. This always the same story.. Patents are registered 'a priori', and owning a patent does not implies that it is justified in any ways. Patents must be treated as a threat, not a legal binding that will enforced by the law. There is plenty of archive on this subject in and out of the debian project, so I don't think this debate worth to be continued here.. Romain http://minilien.com/?Nz1w2Xc6Ri -- Preacherman, don't tell me, Heaven is under the earth. I know you don't know What life is really worth. It's not all that glitters is gold; 'Alf the story has never been told: So now you see the light, eh! Stand up for your rights. Come on!
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Josselin Mouette schrieb: Maybe it would be a good idea to push h.264 now the related patents have been invalidated. It provides a much better compression level than Ogg Theora. I didn't hear anything of H.264 related patents having been invalidated (by what court? In what country?). To my knowledge there's a multitude of patents being connected with H.264. Maybe he is referring to [1] (found via [2])? [1] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070127--1b27verdict.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 Does anyone know about a good summary about recents evolvement regarding multimedia patents? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Romain Beauxis schrieb: This always the same story.. Patents are registered 'a priori', and owning a patent does not implies that it is justified in any ways. Patents must be treated as a threat, not a legal binding that will enforced by the law. Patents that were granted are a valid basis upon which companies can sue companies and projects. They're dangerous until a court denies that special patent claim. Violating a patent is not enough to get you in real trouble (law suits and all), the entity holding the patent in question has to sue you. That may or may not hit you. However, in case of MPEG the patent holders *are* collecting the license fees - and of course they sue if you distribute their coding methods without having a license. If you ship more than 50.000 decoders (easily bypassed by some Linux distributions) they'll charge you 0.25$ per decoder. If you happen to ship more than 50.000 encoders: Again, 0.25$. They even charge for encoded content. ( Taken from http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4vweb.ppt ) To put it into a nutshell: MPEG4 is *not* free, it's completely non-free. Personally I think that's reason enough to avoid it wherever possible. I don't think something essential as the Web should slip into dependency of non-free formats. I don't see how Debian could ship a MPEG-enabled browser in its default installation. If somehow possible the WHATWG should adopt a free format and I think it's in the best interest of Debian to bringing this to the WHATWG's attention. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Reinhard Tartler schrieb: Maybe he is referring to [1] (found via [2])? [1] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070127--1b27verdict.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 Yeah, he might be referring to the Qualcomm case. Qualcomm sued Broadcom for patent infringement and lost. It seems the court also recommended invalidating that patent. Now, that's one special patent that was questioned here. H.264 is covered by many, many patents. Here's a list of patents that can be licensed by paying money to the MPEG-LA: http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-att1.pdf All those patents (hundreds by the looks) are still in place. They're not affected by the Qualcomm case at all. MPEG4 is still heavily patended technology. Not only that, they're charging actual, real fees. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Maik Merten schrieb: If you ship more than 50.000 decoders (easily bypassed by some Linux distributions) they'll charge you 0.25$ per decoder. If you happen to ship more than 50.000 encoders: Again, 0.25$. They even charge for encoded content. ( Taken from http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4vweb.ppt ) Actually those slides are for MPEG-4 Part 2 only, so it seems. H.264 is MPEG-4 Part 10 and different fees may apply. There's no question, though, that MPEG-4 Part 10 does still cost money - I just didn't find the exact terms yet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 16:10, Maik Merten a écrit : If somehow possible the WHATWG should adopt a free format and I think it's in the best interest of Debian to bringing this to the WHATWG's attention. I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that claims that some algorithm you designed were owned by it.. Have you ever looked at the JPEG processing for example ? It is simply a fourier transform followed by an huffman compression... All well known, but still owned by an abusing patent.. Patents have to be beaten at their roots, or you won't run away from them.. Romain -- Everyday is just a holiday, I don't care what the crowd may say. I live the life I love with you, Having fun while they are feeling blue.
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Romain Beauxis schrieb: I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that claims that some algorithm you designed were owned by it.. Have you ever looked at the JPEG processing for example ? It is simply a fourier transform followed by an huffman compression... All well known, but still owned by an abusing patent.. There's a vital difference between knowing that you may get stabbed (submarine patents) and deliberately asking someone to stab you (choosing a format that is covered by patents that are actively enforced). I think the majority of people here may want formats they can freely use. If you want free formats: Choose a format that is free to use to the best of your knowledge. If something bad happens to happen with that format patent wise: Bad luck. But at least you're not knowingly violating any patents, which calls for extra heavy punishment (Triple Damage). That can get very expensive. Patents have to be beaten at their roots, or you won't run away from them.. Until the patent system gets a redesign all you can do is *trying* to stay out of trouble. Happily paying license fees or willingly infringing on MPEG patents by just ignoring the issue won't get you anywhere. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 16:16 +0100, Maik Merten a écrit : Yeah, he might be referring to the Qualcomm case. Qualcomm sued Broadcom for patent infringement and lost. It seems the court also recommended invalidating that patent. Now, that's one special patent that was questioned here. H.264 is covered by many, many patents. Here's a list of patents that can be licensed by paying money to the MPEG-LA: http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-att1.pdf All those patents (hundreds by the looks) are still in place. They're not affected by the Qualcomm case at all. Thanks for these precisions. I am still convinced that we should ignore patents entirely, but this isn't a consensus in the project, so the issues with h.264 remain the same as those of DivX et al. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Josselin Mouette schrieb: Thanks for these precisions. I'm glad I could help to shed some light on that. I am still convinced that we should ignore patents entirely, but this isn't a consensus in the project, so the issues with h.264 remain the same as those of DivX et al. Yeah, sadly it seems H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) is just as dangerous as DivX/XviD (that's technology based on MPEG-4 Part 2). Personally I would love to use and recommend those formats: They're well performing and have good hardware support etc. - it's really a shame the patent system is as lousy as it is. Ignoring patents can be dangerous, though. If you get sued and the suing party can prove you knew of those patents you can get punished even harder AFAIK (IANAL!). In case of Debian vs. MPEG they could simply point to the mailing lists where the various problems with patents were discussed. This whole patent system is a mess and I hope it either collapses under its own weight or is redesigned so it becomes bearable. However, I don't feel like there's much choice right now but to avoid patents wherever possible, even if that isn't 100% safe either. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Recently Apple joined the discussion and questioned if the Ogg formats should get such a recommendation ( http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html ). The following discussion implies Apple wants to see MPEG4 being used for embedded video in browsers. These codecs are not free (they demand a fee for it) and restrict distribution of software containing them. This would mean Debian may have to strip support for video from all shipped browsers. That would mean many Debian users can't legally access parts of the web. Your second paragraph above doesn't follow from your first. Even if the standard for video says to use MPEG4, I assume that it will follow the same model as the rest of HTTP and the video will be a separate object with its own MIME type. Given that, there's absolutely nothing preventing Debian from shipping browsers with video support for the Ogg formats, regardless of what the standard says is the recommended codec. Similar things have been done in the past. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On 23-Mar-07, 11:54 (CDT), Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your second paragraph above doesn't follow from your first. Even if the standard for video says to use MPEG4, I assume that it will follow the same model as the rest of HTTP and the video will be a separate object with its own MIME type. Given that, there's absolutely nothing preventing Debian from shipping browsers with video support for the Ogg formats, regardless of what the standard says is the recommended codec. That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4 support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed, again. If we (the Free Software community) can get Ogg-Theora listed as the base requirement (or recommendation), then we have a small chance of promoting a free codec for widespread use. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
Steve Greenland schrieb: That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4 support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed, again. If we (the Free Software community) can get Ogg-Theora listed as the base requirement (or recommendation), then we have a small chance of promoting a free codec for widespread use. Yeah, that's exactly what intended to say. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On 3/24/07, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignoring patents can be dangerous, though. If you get sued and the suing party can prove you knew of those patents you can get punished even harder AFAIK (IANAL!). In case of Debian vs. MPEG they could simply point to the mailing lists where the various problems with patents were discussed. But are the MPEG patentors *likely* to sue Debian? If Debian was sued over the MPEG patents, imagine what Slashdot and Digg would do to them - it wouldn't be great PR. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:43:52PM +0100, Maik Merten wrote: Romain Beauxis schrieb: I don't agree, you'll always have the threat of an abusing patent that claims that some algorithm you designed were owned by it.. Have you ever looked at the JPEG processing for example ? It is simply a fourier transform followed by an huffman compression... All well known, but still owned by an abusing patent.. There's a vital difference between knowing that you may get stabbed (submarine patents) and deliberately asking someone to stab you (choosing a format that is covered by patents that are actively enforced). And indeed, from a standards POV, it's in our best interest as a society to encourage and promulgate standards which do *not* depend on actively-enforced patents. Even if we believe that Debian and Debian users can avoid having to pay such fees, the inclusion of such patented technologies in a standard ensures that the patent holders *will* collect more licensing fees from *others* who implement the standard, thereby rewarding them for their abuse of patents. The biggest obstacle to freedom from immoral and illegal patent regimes is that racketeering is *profitable*. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:26:25 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4 support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed, It's probably more accurate to say that no matter what the standard says, Microsoft will ignore it and only implement Windows Media formats, which everyone will use, and we'll be screwed. :( -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: video codecs in HTML 5
I demand that Sam Morris may or may not have written... On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:26:25 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: That's all true, but if the standard requires (or recommends) MPEG4 support, then that's what everyone will use, and we'll be screwed, It's probably more accurate to say that no matter what the standard says, Microsoft will ignore it and only implement Windows Media formats, which everyone will use, and we'll be screwed. :( Which basically means that it would be most sensible to have video implemented such that it's just another external thing like object or embed - we'd quite likely just continue to use whatever plugins we're currently using. -- | Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Use more efficient products. Use less. BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT. I'd like to, but I have to study for a blood test. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
