Re: x264 for Debian
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:39:32PM -0500, Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264. Certain graphic artists would say the same of GIMP vs Photoshop, or compare their favorite music application with the numerous GNU/Linux offerings, or even 3d Studio Max/Bryce/Poser/etc vs Blender. There are free alternatives. They may or may not be considered acceptable for specific applications, but this doesn't change that proprietary software is proprietary and is, thus, not DFSG-free. For the sake of correctness, please stop linking H264 with prioprietary. The fact is the software is *free* as in speech. It being patent encumbered doesn't make it proprietary. It still is free as in speech in those countries that don't have such patents. The spec is also available free of charge. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x264 for Debian
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:39:32 -0500 Arc Riley wrote: On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:09:39AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: [...] The patent situation is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the H.264 codec is being adopted by broadcasters throughout the world. For good or bad, the codec is here to stay for a while. I'm not arguing that. Broadcasters are implementing any number of proprietary methods. They are a direct threat to software freedom and need to be boycotted by the free software community. To do otherwise is to put ourselves in a legally disadventagous position while further supporting those who seek to promote proprietary software. Another 100 % agreement! -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpFtUwwAhEnH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: x264 for Debian
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:01:55 -0500 Arc Riley wrote: On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: [...] That said, VP3/Theora can hardly compare with H.264 in terms of coding efficiency. There really is no viable alternative in some situations. Microsoft's WMV9/VC1 comes close but I'm sure it has every bit as non-free licensing terms. This argument has nothing to do with the freeness of it, or it's compliance to the DFSG, but instead seems to be arguing that it's patent status should be ignored because it's superiority over free codecs makes it OK to ignore the ethical concerns over it. This is the same argument used to promote the nvidia binary drivers. Something being useful is not a valid argument to ignore it's proprietary nature. This is what non-free exists for. 100 % agreement. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpkK8Qy6YYsS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: x264 for Debian
Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian? For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging). Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains an unofficial package, and we would like your advice on whether this GPL'd codec meets the DFSG. Christian Marillat wrote: David Liontooth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would you consider packaging x264 for Debian? My experience with your unofficial packages has been excellent on both x86 and amd64. Even though the library is still labeled in early development, it appears to be mature enough to be clearly useful. I have for instance used ffmpeg in conjunction with your unofficial x264-bin to encode video for streaming with VLC and obtained impressive results. Since the code is GPL there should be no legal obstacles. The source code in GPL but I don't know if the codec meet the DFSG. David Liontooth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x264 for Debian
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:26:56PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote: Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian? For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging). Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains an unofficial package, and we would like your advice on whether this GPL'd codec meets the DFSG. Theres a difference between the code and the codec. The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it this is free because it's GPL hurts truely patent-clear codecs such as VP3.2/Theora from being recognised as such. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x264 for Debian
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:26:56PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote: Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian? For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging). Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains an unofficial package, and we would like your advice on whether this GPL'd codec meets the DFSG. Theres a difference between the code and the codec. The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it this is free because it's GPL hurts truely patent-clear codecs such as VP3.2/Theora from being recognised as such. VP3/Theora is all but free of patents. On2 has granted unlimited free use of the patents they hold relevant to VP3. There are almost certainly other patents that could be construed to cover VP3 as well. It is a good gesture nonetheless. That said, VP3/Theora can hardly compare with H.264 in terms of coding efficiency. There really is no viable alternative in some situations. Microsoft's WMV9/VC1 comes close but I'm sure it has every bit as non-free licensing terms. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x264 for Debian
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it this is free because it's GPL hurts truely patent-clear codecs such as VP3.2/Theora from being recognised as such. VP3/Theora is all but free of patents. On2 has granted unlimited free use of the patents they hold relevant to VP3. There are almost certainly other patents that could be construed to cover VP3 as well. It is a good gesture nonetheless. I didn't say patent-free, I said patent-clear. On2 has put a license on it which allows it to be used for any purpose and disclaims any right to restrict it's use or charge royalties. This is the patent version of the BSD license. The dozens of corporations holding patents over H.264/MPEG-4 have not made such a release, and are activly seeking royalties. We don't even know yet what those royalties will be since those corporations are still fighting amoung each other over how to divy up the bounty from the combined patent portfolio. Regardless of the result, it is not patent-clear, will not be patent-clear, and will suffer worse bashlash as the free MP3 encoders did. The GPL specifically forbids redistribution when the liberties granted by the GPL are limited or restricted by patents/etc. To distribute this software on any US-based server is, thus, in violation of the GPL. That said, VP3/Theora can hardly compare with H.264 in terms of coding efficiency. There really is no viable alternative in some situations. Microsoft's WMV9/VC1 comes close but I'm sure it has every bit as non-free licensing terms. This argument has nothing to do with the freeness of it, or it's compliance to the DFSG, but instead seems to be arguing that it's patent status should be ignored because it's superiority over free codecs makes it OK to ignore the ethical concerns over it. This is the same argument used to promote the nvidia binary drivers. Something being useful is not a valid argument to ignore it's proprietary nature. This is what non-free exists for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x264 for Debian
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it this is free because it's GPL hurts truely patent-clear codecs such as VP3.2/Theora from being recognised as such. VP3/Theora is all but free of patents. On2 has granted unlimited free use of the patents they hold relevant to VP3. There are almost certainly other patents that could be construed to cover VP3 as well. It is a good gesture nonetheless. I didn't say patent-free, I said patent-clear. On2 has put a license on it which allows it to be used for any purpose and disclaims any right to restrict it's use or charge royalties. This is the patent version of the BSD license. Sure, On2 has allowed free use of *its* patents relating to VP3. That doesn't mean that some obscure company will pop up out of nowhere with a bunch of patents they claim *also* apply to VP3, and that On2 has been infringing all along. Something like that happened with JPEG not too long ago. The dozens of corporations holding patents over H.264/MPEG-4 have not made such a release, and are activly seeking royalties. We don't even know yet what those royalties will be since those corporations are still fighting amoung each other over how to divy up the bounty from the combined patent portfolio. Regardless of the result, it is not patent-clear, will not be patent-clear, and will suffer worse bashlash as the free MP3 encoders did. The patent situation is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the H.264 codec is being adopted by broadcasters throughout the world. For good or bad, the codec is here to stay for a while. The GPL specifically forbids redistribution when the liberties granted by the GPL are limited or restricted by patents/etc. To distribute this software on any US-based server is, thus, in violation of the GPL. I won't argue about that. That said, VP3/Theora can hardly compare with H.264 in terms of coding efficiency. There really is no viable alternative in some situations. Microsoft's WMV9/VC1 comes close but I'm sure it has every bit as non-free licensing terms. This argument has nothing to do with the freeness of it, or it's compliance to the DFSG, but instead seems to be arguing that it's patent status should be ignored because it's superiority over free codecs makes it OK to ignore the ethical concerns over it. I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264. If you need HD content encoded at 4Mbps, H.264 is the only codec that is capable. Likewise, SD content at 500kbps is impossible with other codecs. It doesn't matter how free something is when it is useless for the required application. I'm not saying that Theora is useless per se. It is adequate for some applications. They are just not the ones where H.264 would normally be considered. This is all off-topic for debian-legal, so I won't pursue the argument further (unless someone says something really silly). -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x264 for Debian
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:09:39AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: Sure, On2 has allowed free use of *its* patents relating to VP3. That doesn't mean that some obscure company will pop up out of nowhere with a bunch of patents they claim *also* apply to VP3, and that On2 has been infringing all along. Something like that happened with JPEG not too long ago. This argument has been made. It's response from lawyers is that, unlike On2's VP3.2, JPEG was believed to be patent-FREE. This opens the way for someone to claim that their generic patent applies. On2's VP3.2 patents have held undisputed for many years now. The base methods have clear prior use (huffman tables, MDCT, etc), nobody has disputed them, and since On2's more recent codecs (VP5, VP6, etc) are based on VP3.2 it would serve someone well to dispute it if they thought they could. There's a big difference, also, between someone could dispute it and many people have patents covering it specifically and are seeking royalties. Someone could argue that the compression method used by bzip2 is patented and try to seek royalties, but this could doesn't trigger the problem in the GPL, that clause is only triggered when someone is activly legally persuing royalties or other restrictions on use or distribution. Nobody has, or is, persuing royalties on On2's VP3.2. All known patents which apply have been disclaimed. It is, thus, patent-clear and DFSG-free. The patent situation is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the H.264 codec is being adopted by broadcasters throughout the world. For good or bad, the codec is here to stay for a while. I'm not arguing that. Broadcasters are implementing any number of proprietary methods. They are a direct threat to software freedom and need to be boycotted by the free software community. To do otherwise is to put ourselves in a legally disadventagous position while further supporting those who seek to promote proprietary software. I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264. Certain graphic artists would say the same of GIMP vs Photoshop, or compare their favorite music application with the numerous GNU/Linux offerings, or even 3d Studio Max/Bryce/Poser/etc vs Blender. There are free alternatives. They may or may not be considered acceptable for specific applications, but this doesn't change that proprietary software is proprietary and is, thus, not DFSG-free. This is all off-topic for debian-legal, so I won't pursue the argument further (unless someone says something really silly). Not really. Wether something is acceptable for inclusion in the debian free package pool for license and patent reasons is exactly what this list is for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x264 for Debian
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:39:32PM -0500, Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264. Certain graphic artists would say the same of GIMP vs Photoshop, or compare their favorite music application with the numerous GNU/Linux offerings, or even 3d Studio Max/Bryce/Poser/etc vs Blender. There are free alternatives. They may or may not be considered acceptable for specific applications, but this doesn't change that proprietary software is proprietary and is, thus, not DFSG-free. For the sake of correctness, please stop linking H264 with prioprietary. The fact is the software is *free* as in speech. It being patent encumbered doesn't make it proprietary. It still is free as in speech in those countries that don't have such patents. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
