Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Apr 2011 09:20 UTC
Google The revolution has begun! Web video will be freed from the shackles of the MPEG-LA and the dreaded claws of patents and incomprehensible licenses! Sorry, I got a little carried away there. Anywho, YouTube has announced all new videos uploaded to the site will be transcoded into WebM, and that the most important part of the site's catalogue is already available in WebM.
Thread beginning with comment 470663
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Opensource, not open...
by mrhasbean on Wed 20th Apr 2011 10:25 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

Thom you again use "opensource" and "open" interoperably when the only ones who actually believe that are those who really think they're not paying "royalties" for video on YouTube if it's in WebM format.

http://www.webmproject.org/code/specs/container/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8

If you can read AND comprehand them, and still believe WebM is open, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Opensource != open

Google are sitting back and laughing all the way to the bank with a barely audible chant of "come in suckers" playing in the background, and rightfully so - the suckers have taken the bait hook, line and sinker. Welcome to the new Google RDF...

Reply Score: -10

RE: Opensource, not open...
by iampivot on Wed 20th Apr 2011 10:32 in reply to "Opensource, not open..."
iampivot Member since:
2005-08-09

Wooa, getting a very high reading on the Troll-O-Meter there...

Are you going to back up your accusations with some facts instead of pasting some links?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Opensource, not open...
by lemur2 on Wed 20th Apr 2011 10:36 in reply to "Opensource, not open..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Thom you again use "opensource" and "open" interoperably when the only ones who actually believe that are those who really think they're not paying "royalties" for video on YouTube if it's in WebM format.

http://www.webmproject.org/code/specs/container/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8

If you can read AND comprehand them, and still believe WebM is open, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Opensource != open

Google are sitting back and laughing all the way to the bank with a barely audible chant of "come in suckers" playing in the background, and rightfully so - the suckers have taken the bait hook, line and sinker. Welcome to the new Google RDF...


WTF???????

Here is the documentation for WebM:
http://www.webmproject.org/code/specs/

The spec has been submitted to the ITEF
http://www.ietf.org/

Here is the license for WebM:
http://www.webmproject.org/license/

Here is what the specification says about the license, it happens to be the exact same text as appears in the license itself:
http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/
VP8 Bitstream Specification License

Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer implementations of this specification where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification.


Anyone may use, anyone may implement, full permission is granted irrevocably and in perpetuity (as long as you don't sue Google).

How is this not open? On what planet?

Your challenge is to explain how this is not open.

Edited 2011-04-20 10:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE: Opensource, not open...
by ptmb on Wed 20th Apr 2011 12:47 in reply to "Opensource, not open..."
ptmb Member since:
2010-05-21

Yes, you can argue that OpenSource is not necessarily open, and you're right.

Yet, it is irrelevant, WebM is open source, is free (as in beer) and free (as in freedom). While this benefits Google a lot (because it is their format), it also benefits browser developers, operating system developers, web designers, web developers and the users themselves, as there are no royalties to be paid for either making or seeing an encoded video.

Yes, Google could change their policies and start changing for the worse, but even if it happens, the previous version of the video format (VP8) and the audio and container formats (Vorbis and Matroska) are completely free and OpenSource. Thus, the web could keep an open format.

Furthermore, it is in Google's interest that the format is open, so all browsers and OSes can implement it and the maximum amount of users can use the formats on Google's sites.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Opensource, not open...
by lemur2 on Wed 20th Apr 2011 12:57 in reply to "RE: Opensource, not open..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, you can argue that OpenSource is not necessarily open, and you're right.


No, you cannot read the actual license terms for WebM and argue that. Not if you want to retain any logic at all.

Yes, Google could change their policies and start changing for the worse


No, Google cannot do that ... what part of "perpetual, no-charge, royalty-free and irrevocable" did you fail to understand?

Edited 2011-04-20 12:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Opensource, not open...
by WereCatf on Wed 20th Apr 2011 15:31 in reply to "RE: Opensource, not open..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Yes, Google could change their policies and start changing for the worse


You do not understand copyright licenses and the clauses in WebM license: they cannot retroactively change license terms for the code and software that has already been released, only for NEW releases. Even if Google somehow, in theory, did change the license some day in the future all the code that is already in the wild will still have the old license and thus it'd just get forked.

Besides, the license itself clearly does say that Google cannot change the license, they've deliberately barred themselves from doing that.

Reply Parent Score: 7

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

You can define open to mean what every you want and then claim what ever you dislike is not open. That doesn't tend to influence people with critical reasoning skills, especially when your dislike is dripping from each word you write.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Opensource, not open...
by Phucked on Wed 20th Apr 2011 16:39 in reply to "Opensource, not open..."
Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

Thom you again use "opensource" and "open" interoperably when the only ones who actually believe that are those who really think they're not paying "royalties" for video on YouTube if it's in WebM format.

http://www.webmproject.org/code/specs/container/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8

If you can read AND comprehand them, and still believe WebM is open, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Opensource != open

Google are sitting back and laughing all the way to the bank with a barely audible chant of "come in suckers" playing in the background, and rightfully so - the suckers have taken the bait hook, line and sinker. Welcome to the new Google RDF...



@ mrhasbean

Its seems you have a chip on your shoulder about Google and WebM. I have moderated your comments up in the past cause you do make sense in a lot of your posts. However when the subject is google or webM/vp8 then you tend to troll with comments not backed by any merit of reality and/or facts which is why you get justly modded down.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Opensource, not open...
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 20th Apr 2011 17:04 in reply to "Opensource, not open..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

So instead of WebM being 100% more attractive to end users/content producers/etc than H.264, it's only 99.99999% more attractive? Thanks for clearing that up.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Opensource, not open...
by Soulbender on Fri 22nd Apr 2011 14:53 in reply to "Opensource, not open..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Opensource != open


War is peace
Slavery is freedom
Ignorance is strength

Reply Parent Score: 3