Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Internet & Networking Ever since it became clear that Google was not going to push WebM as hard as they should have, the day would come that Mozilla would be forced to abandon its ideals because the large technology companies don't care about an open, unencumbered web. No decision has been made just yet, but Mozilla is taking its first strides to adding support for the native H.264 codecs installed on users' mobile systems. See it as a thank you to Mozilla for all they've done for the web.
Thread beginning with comment 510783
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: Whatevs.
by umccullough on Fri 16th Mar 2012 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Whatevs."
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Well, now you're sort of off-topic.


Not really, it's all related when it comes to FOSS...

To which I said you're not going to build a new OS that a great number of people care about without a serious influx of cash, so you could afford to license the codec anyway.


Right, I didn't mention Haiku, ReactOS, AROS, etc., because I thought you would just mock them - but tjese are OSes that a relatively large number of people care about - which do not have a "serious influx of cash", and also suffer from this same problem. Haiku is currently distributing ffmpeg as the implementation for codecs, but ffmpeg doesn't provide a patent license (nor does VideoLAN for that matter...).

But what you're talking about is YALD (Yet Another Linux Distro), not a new OS. I assume that Linux users have access to this codec already (if not built in, then readily available), so whatever method they're currently using to get it is obviously working.


I think you're under the impression that all of the solutions that are "obviously working" are legal - and you'd be wrong. Unless you mean "obviously working" == "ignoring the problem and hoping it blows over"... which is basically what most FOSS users are doing these days. The only licensed Linux (patented) codecs I know of are distributed by Fluendo, which cost money of course, and generally cause problems.

So again, you seem assume that somehow all of this is magically taken care of, and only some huge organization with unlimited funds and resources is ever going to have to deal with it...

Even if Mozilla was somehow miraculously able to obtain a license for all their Firefox users - it would not ever likely extend to unofficial Firefox-based browsers such as the ones ported to AmigaOS and Haiku (well... when it's finally updated again). The same thing exists for Webkit, and Chromium - Apple and Google can not relicense these patents to other developers who re-use the codebase.

I guess that's the price that we pay for building our own software, either infringe the patents, or do without.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[12]: Whatevs.
by WorknMan on Fri 16th Mar 2012 08:18 in reply to "RE[11]: Whatevs."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Right, I didn't mention Haiku, ReactOS, AROS, etc., because I thought you would just mock them - but tjese are OSes that a relatively large number of people care about - which do not have a "serious influx of cash", and also suffer from this same problem.


And these operating systems are also never going to be taken seriously by anybody but hobbyists. That's why I stressed an OS that was competitive, not one designed by a bunch of nerds, for a bunch of nerds.

I think you're under the impression that all of the solutions that are "obviously working" are legal - and you'd be wrong. Unless you mean "obviously working" == "ignoring the problem and hoping it blows over"... which is basically what most FOSS users are doing these days. The only licensed Linux (patented) codecs I know of are distributed by Fluendo, which cost money of course, and generally cause problems.


And I assume that actually paying a license to use these codecs is out of the question? Is that against people's religion to pay money for stuff they find useful enough to bitch endlessly about if they don't have it? Like, 'Hey... here's a free OS, but you might have to cough up a few bucks to play these media files ...' At least that might be an option if 'they' ever come after you, which they probably won't if they know you don't have any money to begin with.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: Whatevs.
by WereCatf on Fri 16th Mar 2012 09:15 in reply to "RE[12]: Whatevs."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

And these operating systems are also never going to be taken seriously by anybody but hobbyists. That's why I stressed an OS that was competitive, not one designed by a bunch of nerds, for a bunch of nerds.


Tbh, ALL OSes start without being competitive and in the beginning they're all designed by a bunch of nerds for a bunch of nerds. There is no magic wand to wave around so that you can just suddenly come up with a whole OS that even happens to come with a massive userbase, too.

And I assume that actually paying a license to use these codecs is out of the question?


There are plenty of cases where it indeed is out-of-the-question. Linux for example is often used in all kinds of gratis charity-work, like e.g. computing clubs. Often the one or ones running the show are doing it all from their own pockets and having to pay extra just for the sake of being able to play video is just too much. Linux is also used in a lot of various kinds really poor environments and in products like OLPC, leaving the burden of obtaining a license to the end-user is really out-of-question there.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[13]: Whatevs.
by umccullough on Fri 16th Mar 2012 15:58 in reply to "RE[12]: Whatevs."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

And these operating systems are also never going to be taken seriously by anybody but hobbyists. That's why I stressed an OS that was competitive, not one designed by a bunch of nerds, for a bunch of nerds.


Of course... precisely what I would have expected from you.

It's not even worth responding to your other arguments, because your density makes it difficult to communicate with you.

We'll see what happens in 2015 when the MPEG-LA re-evaluates their distribution licensing options for internet service providers who use video technologies.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[13]: Whatevs.
by Alfman on Fri 16th Mar 2012 22:53 in reply to "RE[12]: Whatevs."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"And I assume that actually paying a license to use these codecs is out of the question? Is that against people's religion to pay money for stuff they find useful enough to bitch endlessly about if they don't have it? Like, 'Hey... here's a free OS, but you might have to cough up a few bucks to play these media files ...' At least that might be an option if 'they' ever come after you, which they probably won't if they know you don't have any money to begin with."

Don't confuse the desire to avoid paying patent royalties with a desire not to pay the software developers. In general many people who feel 100% justified in not paying patent royalties over 3rd party software implementations still feel it's wrong to abuse copyrights.

The reality is that any commercially viable entity has to pay for patent fees in order to avoid being sued into oblivion. However if it were left up the end users to pay patent fees for commercial and free software, I am fairly confident that large percentages from BOTH sets of users would refuse to pay due to moral objections. Paying the patent trolls is the same as paying the mofia, it gets them off your back, but it only empowers them to do more harm and continue their threats.

Reply Parent Score: 3