Free Software Foundation Urges Google To Free VP8 315
jamesswift writes "The FSF have written an open letter to Google urging them to free the VP8 codec with an irrevocable royalty-free licence: 'With its purchase of the On2 video compression technology company having been completed on Wednesday February 16, 2010, Google now has the opportunity to make free video formats the standard, freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec.'"
Also from the letter: "The world would have a new free format unencumbered by software patents. Viewers, video creators, free software developers, hardware makers -- everyone -- would have another way to distribute video without patents, fees, and restrictions. The free video format Ogg Theora was already at least as good for web video (see a comparison) as its nonfree competitor H.264, and we never did agree with your objections to using it. But since you made the decision to purchase VP8, presumably you're confident it can meet even those objections, and using it on YouTube is a no-brainer."
Google could do real good with this. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope Google does this. A real, free video system for the internet would do incalculable good. Google could once again take the high road, and show it truly is different than the evil Microsoft!
I hope Google agrees.
Re:No one company owns H.264 (Score:3, Interesting)
So then buy into the video codec cartel by buying a patent off of someone. I'm assuming being part of the cartel entitles you to free use of h.264.
Pedant point (Score:3, Interesting)
freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec.'
Point of order: Flash is not a video codec - it is a rich internet application platform which includes streaming video capability. Flash video is a "container" format which can use a variety of (proprietary) codecs including On2 VP6 and H.264.
So, whatever the other arguments against Flash, on the issue of potential future H.264 patent problems its no better or worse than HTML5+H.264.
Re:Oh God, please no! (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably a naive question, but--If we have so much hardware support for decoding, then why are Linux / BSD playback such a problem? Wouldn't you then be passing the stream to hardware for decoding, thereby avoiding needing a license to process the stream? I figure you would only need the license to decode in software (since then you are actually writing the codecs yourself)...
Not likely to be Free regardless (Score:4, Interesting)
If Google opens up VP8, the same thing that happened to Microsoft when they opened up Windows Media as VC-1 will happen.
When MS opened up Windows Media as VC-1 a bunch of companies claimed patents on it (including some that claim they have patents on MPEG4/H.264) and everyone had to join the patent pool and/or buy a license.
Re:Not a good letter. (Score:2, Interesting)
> since submarine patents are always a threat.
Which makes me wonder why everyone is always so keen to make new video formats. Why not just use one of the ones that's twenty years old? All the patents would be expired, then. Are the video formats from the late eighties really all deficient in some important way? With all the formats that were floating around back then, competing to cram more video into less space, it's difficult to imagine that NONE of them can meet our needs in this decadent era of cheap storage, extravagant bandwidth, and powerful multi-core CPUs. What am I missing?
Even Google can't implement VP8 (Score:5, Interesting)
If you check the size of h264/mp4 SP implemented devices, Android, iPad, iPod like "trendy" new stuff is a drop in the ocean.
Companies who actually broadcasts and sells content looks for the size of the market, the share of the market and yes, in that case non smart phones (billions!) are also mattering with the advent of 3G and even EDGE.
Lets say, if you invent a codec which will effectively erase h264 in terms of quality&bandwidth, h264/mp4 and even mpeg-2 will still stay since that device in your hand and connected device to your TV has some kind of impossible to replace chip.
I think FSF and "Free codec" thinks everyone uses the latest device/trendy PC and somehow, Google will magically add VP8 to it. How? They don't even see the real magic thing about H264, it is scalability and compatibility. Most of "Real is spyware" trolls or "MS is dying" people doesn't know it but... H264 and AAC(+) is the first time the entire industry agreed on a single codec. Device manufacturers, software vendors, chip manufacturers, cell phone manufacturers have all said "OK, regardless of our evil World domination plans, there is nothing that can match H264".
For the first time in media history, Real, MS, Satellite Boxes, Apple, Cell phones, Media devices, Blu Ray are all using the very same codec with little difference which makes it extremely easy and cheap for the actual content creators. When a TV professional hears about Linux, he pictures a Da Vinci box (lovely thing based on Linux), not the 1% Desktop... Thanks to iPhone/iPod and actually rising market share, Apple matters but Apple has already decided back when nobody except media professionals and codec nerds knew about it. It is H264.
Stop being pedantic (Score:5, Interesting)
I know geeks love to try and be as overly literal as possible but it doesn't help your case here. H.264 is NOT a proprietary format, because that's not how the word is used. In terms of formats proprietary means a format owned by a single company. VP8 would be a proprietary format. On2, now Google, owns all rights to it. The decide how it can be used and who, if anyone, will get a license.
This is as opposed to open formats, or open standards if you like, which is what H.264 is. What this means is that the format and all related documentation are open for anyone on equal terms. Anybody who wants the docs can get them for a fixed fee (often free, sometimes not). Also licensing is RAND, reasonable and non-discriminatory. That means that the fees charged are in line with what it does and the sort of thing companies might actually pay. So no "$50,000 per minute of media," sort of thing because that would be an effective ban, even if it was technically licensing. Also they are fixed, the same for everyone, so there's no discrimination where some companies get good terms and some don't.
There are also of course free formats, where there is no charge or license to use them, either because they were made that way or because all the patents have expired.
However, open standards are quite common and are quite well understood as opposed to proprietary ones. Hardware makers and such care about open standards because it means they know they can license it and use it, and don't have to worry about the company who own it cutting them off. They know what it'll cost, and that won't change.
So VP8 is currently proprietary, H.264 is open, Theora is free. See the difference?
Re:No one company owns H.264 (Score:3, Interesting)
How about the ability to operate freely without being a target of video software patent racketeering.
Nobody is suggesting that Mozilla should implement h.264. They should simply use a codec if you have it installed. If you don't have it installed then it won't support it. They can do the same for all the other video formats out there, and even just provide a general API for codecs to register themselves or use whatever the underlying OS uses.
If they don't distribute anything that violates the h.264 patents then they're in the clear. Let the user manage their own legal situation. Most users have an h.264 codec from someplace legit anyway, and the rest can look at their legal jurisdictions and follow the law as best as they can.
Re:Well thats the FSF for you (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:H.264/MPEG-4 is no more proprietary than MPEG2 (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right, H.264 is very much like MPEG2 in this respect, but I'm not sure that's ideal. The MPEG-LA considers that you need a license for every MPEG2 player ($2.50), every MPEG2 encoder ($2.50), plus a royalty on every distributed item (such as a DVD).
This is the reason that most Linux distros don't come with DVD/digital TV tuner playback without downloading a codec from a 3rd party. This may be legal or not depending on your jurisdiction (from the fact you use ATSC, I'm guessing you're in a country that does recognise software patents), but either way the fact it happened for DVD doesn't mean it's a good idea for the web.
The MPEG4 licensing agreement includes a licensing cost for every encoded stream on the internet, but has currently set that rate at zero for much online content (as an introductory rate). This is pretty explicitly a policy to encourage use and then, once it totally dominates online video, profit from it to a greater degree later.
The MPEG-LA is certainly an improvement from negotiating a separate license for every patent (not that anyone can guarantee that all applicable patents are in the pool), but it's not very compatible with open source software and a royalty free codec would be better for everyone.
Re:Problem still remains (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all.
What web video standard does Android support?
H.264
What web video standard does WebOS from Palm support?
H.264
What web video standard does the WinCE and Windows Mobile 7 support?
H.264
What web video standard does the Blackberry support?
I am not sure on that one but I will bet on h.264
We are talking about smart phones for the most part right now but guess what video standard is supported in most cell phone chipsets?
It is also h.264.
Just as the IBM PC wasn't the only computer back in the day. And just as Lotus 123 wasn't the only spreadsheet they became standards.
h.264 is an even more entrenched standard because of the hardware support in mobile chip sets.
So even if the iPhone never sells another set the standards that it has set for video will live on.