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 470684
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Opensource, not open...
by ptmb on Wed 20th Apr 2011 12:47 UTC 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

RE[3]: Opensource, not open...
by ptmb on Wed 20th Apr 2011 23:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Opensource, not open..."
ptmb Member since:
2010-05-21

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.

Ups, I wasn't clear enough. That is exactly what would allow the web to use previous versions of VP8, Vorbis and Matroska together, as in my example, I just wasn't clear enough.

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

I did not know that. WebM uses the BSD license, am I correct? (I remember the previous modified BSD license regarding the patents, but they removed the extra clause)

Reply Parent Score: 1