Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 3 hrs, 31 mins ago -
The N900 is now 15 years old! (6)
to Nokia N900 by Macros - 1 day, 23 hrs ago -
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 2 days, 12 hrs ago -
n770 youtube video (0)
to General by nmdv - 6 days, 11 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to herpderp For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-03-28
, 10:05
|
|
Posts: 329 |
Thanked: 422 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ derpton
|
#12
|
Originally Posted by shmerl
Don't try to put sense into the TMO dwellers, it won't penetrate their thick skulls. I tried, and then gave up.
Free as in open requires royalty free usage. Open source implementations alone don't guarantee that. I thought it's all quite basic, I'm not sure what you are arguing about.
| The Following User Says Thank You to herpderp For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2013-03-28
, 11:27
|
|
Posts: 2,102 |
Thanked: 1,937 times |
Joined on Sep 2008
@ Berlin, Germany
|
#13
|
@shmerl, herpderp: I really do not like the way you are trying to mock my opinion into trolling and calling me 'TMO dweller'. Please, i ask you to stop it.
I agree, that 'open-source' is not like 'free of charge'.
But as i do not like the advertisement bombardment
, i would rather accept some kind of small fee.Probably like the fee, that is charged to CDs, DVD, drives and stick to smoother the copy of media and content.
But i am far from a lawyer
to estimate all the aspects of the topic! 
I agree, that 'open-source' is not like 'free of charge'.
But as i do not like the advertisement bombardment
, i would rather accept some kind of small fee.Probably like the fee, that is charged to CDs, DVD, drives and stick to smoother the copy of media and content.But i am far from a lawyer
to estimate all the aspects of the topic!
|
|
2013-03-28
, 11:32
|
|
Posts: 1,994 |
Thanked: 3,342 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ N900: Battery low. N950: torx 4 re-used once and fine; SIM port torn apart
|
#14
|
Originally Posted by herpderp
Fair... I haven't visited Mozilla Planet for a very long time. And Eurekalert, or 'general' news websites, would not take much notice of such 'trifling' matters as HTML5 video codecs.
How could you NOT hear about it?
Is TMO the only tech site you visit? Based on your comments I think so...
Originally Posted by herpderp
Cheerful smile... I get that VP8 is under a free license, and the patents are royalty-free, but I still would have preferred to have no patents at all (similarly to Dirac), and a license-as-open-as-possible. Both VP8 and Theora are derived from VP3; why is Theora not considered a worthy choice? Yes, I am whining that proprietary development is suddenly considered to be of higher quality than parallel open-source development.
Don't try to put sense into the TMO dwellers, it won't penetrate their thick skulls. I tried, and then gave up.
Since the software's license is considered [by Free Software Foundation] to be compatible with GPL, WebM-VP8 should be quite fine. I just don't wish for Theora to be abandoned in the Googlish excitement over bought-and-opened VP8.
Apple has opposed requiring Ogg format support in the HTML standard (even as a "should" requirement) on the grounds that HTML has historically not required particular formats for anything. Therefore, I am equally opposed to request of Mozilla and Opera that VP8 should be included in HTML.
Is freedom of choice too much to ask for? If Google makes good on his promise, and removes support for H.264 from Google Chrome, market share of browsers supporting only free formats would stand at 51%, 12% higher than that of browsers supporting only H.264. Good enough for those defending open-source-free video formats. No necessity to require particular formats within HTML standard.
Best wishes.
_________________
Per aspera ad astra...
Last edited by Wikiwide; 2013-03-28 at 11:35. Reason: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/googles-updated-webm-license
|
|
2013-03-28
, 19:09
|
|
Posts: 1,298 |
Thanked: 2,277 times |
Joined on May 2011
|
#17
|
Originally Posted by michaaa62
I didn't call you any of these - I said I don't understand what you are arguing about. Let's make it simple. To have a truly open codec, you need to:
@shmerl, herpderp: I really do not like the way you are trying to mock my opinion into trolling and calling me 'TMO dweller'. Please, i ask you to stop it.
1. have a codec (coder/decoder) algorithm.
2. have an open source implementation of this codec.
3. have no known patents on this codec which are preventing you from using it royalty free.
VP8 has all these 3 conditions. H.264 lacks condition 3. Is it clearer now? Mentioning "advertisements" is completely irrelevant here.
Originally Posted by Wikiwide
Only codecs developed from the ground up by free software groups like Xiph are completely patents free. Codecs which were closed and opened later like Theora (VP3) and VP8 have patents which were assigned to them originally, but which were "liberated" as open - i.e. granted royalty free usage. It's as if they don't exist for you for all practical purposes. Who told you that Dirac has no patents attached to it? It has them, and they are royalty free as in VP8 case:
Cheerful smile... I get that VP8 is under a free license, and the patents are royalty-free, but I still would have preferred to have no patents at all (similarly to Dirac), and a license-as-open-as-possible. Both VP8 and Theora are derived from VP3; why is Theora not considered a worthy choice?
As a defensive measure the BBC has applied for patent protection for some techniques that are, or may be, used within Dirac. Our purpose in doing so is to provide protection for Dirac from spurious patent suits by other parties. Under the terms of the MPL we have licensed these patents irrevocably and royalty free for use within the Dirac software. Our aim is to increase the likelihood that Dirac succeeds, and is used.
Theora is not considered because it's not on par in quality.
Last edited by shmerl; 2013-03-28 at 19:35.
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to shmerl For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2013-03-29
, 09:37
|
|
Posts: 329 |
Thanked: 422 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ derpton
|
#18
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to herpderp For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2013-03-29
, 10:00
|
|
Posts: 1,994 |
Thanked: 3,342 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ N900: Battery low. N950: torx 4 re-used once and fine; SIM port torn apart
|
#19
|
Originally Posted by herpderp
Yes, it is such a kind move to not sue those developers who provide (for free) open-source implementations of the patents. Wouldn't it be even kinder to abolish these patents altogether? Like, release these technologies and file formats into public domain.
Yeah, Google is totally the bad guy in this story.
Google may be kind, but Google is aiming to dominate the world.
Best wishes.
|
|
2013-03-29
, 10:06
|
|
Posts: 329 |
Thanked: 422 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ derpton
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by Wikiwide
At least they don't go about suing their competitors (either directly or through proxy companies) like MS and Nokia does (and of course Apple).
Yes, it is such a kind move to not sue those developers who provide (for free) open-source implementations of the patents. Wouldn't it be even kinder to abolish these patents altogether? Like, release these technologies and file formats into public domain.
Google may be kind, but Google is aiming to dominate the world.
Best wishes.
Also, patents are like weapons for these big companies. If Google would abolish their patents they would be a great target for the other big tech companies.
Holding patents has become sort of like the countries holding nukes - the big players have them, and they use them to keep each other in check.
Last edited by herpderp; 2013-03-29 at 10:08.
 |
| Tags |
| codecs war, google, google bad, nokia, nokia good |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:43.
Is TMO the only tech site you visit? Based on your comments I think so...