

H.264 Licencing and Free Software - robin_reala
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/h264_licensing.html

======
statictype
In terms of open standards, is there any reason to switch from Flash to HTML5
video if that video is going to be in H.264?

I understand that there are possibly technical reasons for Chrome\Safari
choosing H.264 as the default codec instead of Theora but it strikes me as
somewhat disingenuous for people to harp on about the need to move away from a
proprietary technology like Flash, if the alternative is an open standard
built on top of a proprietary codec.

~~~
tumult
H.264 is not proprietary. It's a standard, created through the coordination
and cooperation of a large number of groups. Unlike much software that is
'protected' under patents, the development of MPEGn, H.264, etc. was a
significant investment in both time and money by those participating. That
does not make it any more justified, but it is something to keep in mind --
the project is not a joke or a patent troll.

Anyone can view the standard and implement it. To distribute, you are to
acquire a license from the MPEG LA. The terms are not onerous or the fee
excessive. Google and Apple both pay the license fee for each download of
Safari or Chrome. The patent holders have so far not prosecuted projects like
x264, which distributes its implementations without a license.

Do I think software patents should be abolished? Yes. Do I think Mozilla is
holding back the open web by not supporting H.264? Yes.

~~~
shrikant
I'm not sure how this works, but if x264 has been getting along fine without
legal tangles, then why can't Mozilla use this instead?

Unless their primary fear is of being a larger patent attack surface.

Additionally, I was under the impression that the patent sabre-rattling can
happen only in places where software patents are valid. So why can't Mozilla
offer a build of Firefox for download only in, say, India? Too much effort?

~~~
spatulon
x264 is an encoder. Browsers need a decoder. The most popular open source
H.264 decoder is the one that's part of FFmpeg, which is used both by
applications that do pay a license fee (Google Chrome) and applications that
don't (VLC).

~~~
xenonite
do you know why VLC does not have to pay a fee?

~~~
vetinari
Because they are based in France and EU does not recognize software patents.
If you are using VLC in US/Japan, it is your responsibility to pay the fee.

~~~
shrikant
Is there a reason Mozilla cannot work this way?

~~~
vetinari
It is does not solve Mozilla's problem with fees paid by authors and
publishers. Do you want to pay license fees for videos you will put on your
webpage? Thought so...

There is another advantage VLC has: it is academic project, sponsored by
University. Even in US, you can use patented technologies for research without
license.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Again, VLC's distribution is not for academic purposes it is a commercial
offering (yes, even though it is free).

In your last sentence you are right, _you_ can but you can't pretend you are
aiding others to do their own research as a cover for commercial activity as
that would be contributory infringement.

------
shrikant
While it might work for dead-tree media, I don't see any benefit of 4 little
columns vs. 1 wide-ish block for a blog. Especially when blockquoting a fairly
sizable amount of text.

The Readability bookmarklet works well on this.

~~~
thristian
I agree that it makes the page less readable, but I can forgive Roc that
little indulgence; he implemented support for CSS columns in Gecko; it's only
fair that he gets to show it off.

Asa Dotzler's blog (<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/>) has the headings
twist by five degrees or so when you mouse over them; he's not even a Gecko
developer, so he's got no excuse.

~~~
shrikant
It's 3 degrees, ha! ;)

    
    
      .title a:hover {
       -moz-transform: rotate(-3deg); -moz-transform-origin: top middle;"
        color:#2A0000;
        }
    

Annoying, yes. Readable, yes.

------
CrLf
Ok, can someone explain this to me: if H.264 licensing is an issue, why not
offload the whole thing to the platform's video codec APIs?

If the OS vendor already pays license fees for the decoders, than that should
cover it. If the vendor doesn't, well, then that's a problem.

~~~
didroe
Because for Mozilla it's not a case of side-stepping the law. It's a case of
their moral intentions. They want the web to be usable for people who want to
run free software, or at least for it to be possible to write a browser stack
based on open code.

------
felixge
So if you provide a service for just encoding video to H.264 (using ffmpeg)),
without streaming the videos to end users, you are already deep into patent
trouble?

~~~
jermy
Yes, producing encoded content would indeed require you to have a licence.
But, if you're running such a service, at least licences are cheap (even if
the pricing model is still set around the concept of hardware devices).

------
jonknee
Great, my vendor (Apple) is on the list. Just use their decoding functionality
please--it works beautifully.

~~~
xenonite
yes, but sadly websites cannot get around using a flash plugin or ogg theora
on other platforms for streaming movies.

~~~
DrJokepu
Well, given that Microsoft is on the list as well, 98% of all desktops are
covered. The remaining 2% are welcome to purchase licensed third party codecs.

I don't want to sound offensive but just because some tiny portion of people
would prefer a free/open solution, the large majority of the people (who
actually use a commrecial OS and and don't really care about the whole thing
just want YouTube working on their desktop) shouldn't be "punished".

~~~
robin_reala
Microsoft weren’t on that list when XP came out, so it’s hardly 2% of users.

~~~
vetinari
Actually, it is new thing in Windows 7, so Vista also does not have H.264
decoder.

What about turning it around? 100% has access to open decoder, and if 2% wants
to use licensed codec, they can. Remember, Theora was suggested as baseline
codec, not as only codec.

------
briansmith
Is a h.264 license more expensive than the extra bandwidth that would be
necessary for Theora?

~~~
jon_dahl
For businesses, this is a good question. H.264 licensing can be relatively
inexpensive (free for moderate use, cheaper than MP3 or AAC for high-volume
use). So most businesses are probably better off using H.264 than Theora.

Firefox is another story; they aren't charging, and according to the article,
would be responsible for the licensing costs for every one of their (hundreds
of millions of?) users.

------
megamark16
So my question is, what video codec __should __we be using? Is there a codec
of sufficient quality that _is_ completely open and free?

~~~
robin_reala
Theora. Whether it’s of ‘sufficient’ quality is debatable, but for normal
YouTube style videos it’s fine. For higher definition videos there’s Dirac,
but that’s not really field tested yet.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
They could probably get a good chunk of improvement out of Theora if they
broke the spec, fixed a couple of things that either seemed sensible at the
time or were just plain stupid and took advantage of what we've learned about
codecs and assumptions about processors speeds and capabilities in the
meantime.

They haven't done so yet because there's still room for improvements to be
wrung out of the current spec and the longer they wait to do a non-backwards
compatible spec break the better they'll be able to make it.

If Google releases one of the VP codecs then it's probably not going to be
that much better than what xiph could have done if they weren't trying to keep
compatability since they're based on the same core technology.

~~~
robin_reala
Yes, the Thusnelda improvements do seem to be paying dividends.

