Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th May 2010 16:28 UTC, submitted by bnolsen
Multimedia, AV Yes, I broke my own rules and used a "breaking" modifier for this story (let me have my fun for once). Here we have it, as the rumour mill suggested, Google has released the On2 VP8 video codec as open source (royalty free, BSD-style), while also launching the WebM container format which combines a VP8 video stream with Vorbis audio. Support for WebM has been enabled on YouTube's HTML5 beta, and you can download patches against ffmpeg as well as DirectShow filters for Windows (Gstreamer plugins are labelled as "coming soon"). Mac users are out of luck for now; no QuickTime plugins have been announced yet. Update: The WebM blog is now open - and the list of partners is pretty decent already. It includes ARM, NVIDIA, AMD, Qualcomm, and many others. Update II: VP8 will be baked into Flash. Update III: The Opera labs version with WebM support has been released too, for Linux, Mac, and Windows.
Thread beginning with comment 425414
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Someone will complain
by soulrebel123 on Wed 19th May 2010 17:11 UTC in reply to "Someone will complain"
soulrebel123
Member since:
2009-05-13

Probably this is one of the few things that can benefit from a BSD style license. If many company adopt it and it finds a way in many products, there will be enough interest to improve it, even if nobody is required to publish his modifications.

One negative aspect is that it could lead to closed source forks which are incompatible between one another.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Someone will complain
by phoenix on Wed 19th May 2010 19:03 in reply to "RE: Someone will complain"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Probably this is one of the few things that can benefit from a BSD style license. If many company adopt it and it finds a way in many products, there will be enough interest to improve it, even if nobody is required to publish his modifications.


BSD-style licenses are good for infrastructure code that sits below applications (codecs, network stacks, protocols, dictionaries, libraries, etc). Things that you want multiple groups to pick up, and to include in their products, to improve interoperability and compatibility. Does it really matter if MS or Apple or Foo Inc takes the code, sticks it in Widget Y, and then sells it? No. It's better they took this code then wrote their own from scratch causes all kinds of incompatilities.

GPL-style licenses are better for end-user applications where you differentiate yourself from the competition (web browsers, word processors, mail clients, etc).

BSD-style licenses get the code out there and used by everybody to build bigger and better things. And GPL-style licenses keep those bigger and better things "open" and "free".

Reply Parent Score: 7

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Very nicely put. I would also add open source implementations of proprietary formats under the GPL umbrella (like samba). That serves to unify the effort to achieve compatibility with the proprietary format.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Someone will complain
by Valhalla on Wed 19th May 2010 20:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Someone will complain"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


BSD-style licenses are good for infrastructure code that sits below applications (codecs, network stacks, protocols, dictionaries, libraries, etc). Things that you want multiple groups to pick up, and to include in their products, to improve interoperability and compatibility. Does it really matter if MS or Apple or Foo Inc takes the code, sticks it in Widget Y, and then sells it? No. It's better they took this code then wrote their own from scratch causes all kinds of incompatilities.

GPL-style licenses are better for end-user applications where you differentiate yourself from the competition (web browsers, word processors, mail clients, etc).

BSD-style licenses get the code out there and used by everybody to build bigger and better things. And GPL-style licenses keep those bigger and better things "open" and "free".


That sums up the way "I see it" aswell. Quoted for full agreement.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Someone will complain
by nt_jerkface on Wed 19th May 2010 19:17 in reply to "RE: Someone will complain"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


One negative aspect is that it could lead to closed source forks which are incompatible between one another.


If there are any incompatible forks they will likely be open source.

BSD is a much better fit for a codec since it can be used in proprietary browsers and video players without any issues.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Someone will complain
by lemur2 on Wed 19th May 2010 23:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Someone will complain"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" One negative aspect is that it could lead to closed source forks which are incompatible between one another.
If there are any incompatible forks they will likely be open source. "

Hardly. The whole goal of open source is to satisfy a need of developers and users ... and therefore compatibility would be a primary aim. The whole goal of making an incompatible variant is to lock people in to your product only.

If there are going to be any incompatible forks they will likely be closed source.

BSD is a much better fit for a codec since it can be used in proprietary browsers and video players without any issues.


Wow. We actually agree on something for once.

The license terms for any piece of software are set by the authors/owners of that software. Google's purpose is therefore what counts, and what should determine the license they choose, and Googles purpose here is clearly best served by a BSD-style license.

Reply Parent Score: 4