Canonical Explains Decision to License H.264 For Ubuntu

tux writes with this snippet from The Register: "Ubuntu's commercial sponsor Canonical has tried to clarify how — if not why — it has licensed a closed-source and patented codec for video on PCs running its Linux. Canonical is the first Linux shop to have agreed to license the codec in question, H.264, from MPEG LA. Even though Red Hat and Novell are also available for use on PCs, they have not licensed H.264."

Comments

Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a great move for the Linux community, even if some "pure" free and open source people disagree. You cant get everything at once and expect casual people to put up with "it's proprietary so we dont support it" if they want to do something, or demand them to add some Russian repositories in the apt-get config file so they can get unlicensed, pirated versions of those and break the law. No, they will just get something that works for them. And H.264 has already clearly won this round, so anyone catering for casual people has to support it.

Like TFA notes, Canonical has also previously licensed well done closed source software for Ubuntu. You aren't losing your soul if you take the best from the both worlds. In fact you are still promoting open source software, and probably way more efficiently when people actually like the system and can use it the way they want to. I honestly dont think every software in the world should be open source, but the underlying system should be. But even if you want software and standards to be open too, after getting the open OS out there the next step is to create competitive, better alternatives for the software and standards.

Be focused on one thing, dont try to fight the whole world at once.

-sopssa

Re:Good thing

[poetmatt]

so you psoted that anonymously to avoid serious downmodding? Whats a hoot.

Honestly, H264 is a horrible idea. They're signing up now when this thing isn't even GPL compatible. Do you have any diea what that means?

oh, right, you don't. Way to troll.

Re:Good thing

[armanox]

Unfortunately legal reasons prevent US based distributions from shipping with such codecs.

Re:Good thing

[nightsweat]

So use another distro if you object.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Try cracking a Microsoft joke. Something along the lines of Balmer throwing chairs. Maybe add in some insensitive clod, ???? Profit, and soviet Russia, end it with sfm4.@#$@ NO CARRIER

Re:Good thing

[mugurel]

heh, and now you get modded up... but anyway, i disagree with you on fighting the whole world at once. This is about settling a standard video format for the web for the time to come. It's not something you do today and undo tomorrow. If you desire open and license free standards this is not the right time to make a compromise!

Re:Good thing

[LWATCDR]

Yes it means that I can play h.264 video on a Linux distro without jumping through hoops.

Honestly just use Debian if you really don't like it.
Canonical had three choices.
1. Not include it and cause new users problems. Maybe big enough problems that they stop using Linux
2. Just include it anyway and face a long nasty court battle.
3. Pay for it and include it.
Since they already offer Flash and the none GPL video drivers so this not being GPL is no big deal.

Re:Good thing

[Ethanol-fueled]

If you desire open and license free standards this is not the right time to make a compromise!

Maybe, but stuff like this needs to happen for widespread adoption of Linux, to make it legit in the eyes of the masses. The purists can always use other distros and/or hack together other working solutions. Remember, the beauty of Linux is that you always have a choice.

As an aside, I'm amused that sopssa has bad karma(excellent FP in this case). If you wanna get constant +5 first posts, you gotta play rough with the big boys, dude.

Re:Good thing

[jedidiah]

It's not like an iPad where the alternative is to give up everything useful about the platform in the process.

Turning your back on Ubuntu won't turn you into some sort of Linux-Amisher.

You are free to come and go as you like (no vendorlock).

Re:Good thing

[Lehk228]

code doesn't have to be GPL compatible to be run on linux, otherwise the GPL would be so dead nobody would have heard of it by now

Re:Good thing

[CowboyBob500]

They're signing up now when this thing isn't even GPL compatible. Do you have any diea what that means?

It means an Ubuntu PC will work with the majority of sites on the Internet while yours won't. Now you can moan about that as much as you like, but 99% of people just don't care - they just want their PC to work.

Re:Good thing

[jedidiah]

> Yes it means that I can play h.264 video on a Linux distro without jumping through hoops.

Except that is already the case.

You don't have to "jump through hoops" to play h264 on Ubuntu. Just try to play the file and click next a few times.

The kind of mindless FUD you are trying to spread right this very moment is why Canonical is doing this.

If you feel like jumping through hoops, try playing a generic MPEG2 file on a Mac.

Re:Good thing

[fbjon]

It's never the right time to compromise, but you have to do it anyway.

Re:Good thing

[jedidiah]

...except there is enough variation in h264 that this still doesn't constitute a standard.

"Standardizing" on h264 just gets you in the general neighborhood. It still doesn't gaurantee that your video will play on any device.

Although if you do manage to find that "lowest common denominator", you will likely find it unsuitable for more robust clients.

This isn't quite like settling on mp3 or jpg.

Re:Good thing

[DurendalMac]

People like you are the reason that desktop Linux will never really take off. You want mass market? You have to include the things that people want, and with more video going to H.264 online, what are you supposed to tell the consumers? "Sorry, this doesn't jibe with the worldview that we hold and you don't understand or care about. You just want to watch videos online, but we don't want that, so tough luck."

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with the FUD?

add some Russian repositories in the apt-get config file so they can get unlicensed, pirated versions of those and break the law.

In countries not recognizing software patents, it's perfectly legal to provide "patented" codecs for download.

In countries recognizing software patents (or any other patents, for that matter), personal use does not constitute infringment, so downloading and using the "patented" codecs isn't breaking the law.

"Piracy" generally means copyright infringement, which is AFAIK not the norm here -- we have perfectly good open-source implementations.

Re:Good thing

[DurendalMac]

Mod this guy up. A lot of hardcore FOSS advocates want everything to go open source, but they refuse to see things as they are. Right now, there are closed-source codecs, programs, operating systems, etc out there that have the bulk of many different markets. You want Linux to get more desktop market share? You will NOT be able to do it without biting the bullet and supporting some closed standards. End of story.

Re:Good thing

[DaMattster]

I respectfully disagree. The entire point of open source is to foster and encourage it as well as produce it. Canonical would have been better off trying to throw its weight behind Google and VP8. It is not a question of winners and losers. Remember when Linux was the real underdog? Linux proves that an open source battle can be fought and one .... Linus and the FSF proved that community developed, open source applications can compete neck and neck with their proprietary counterparts and, in some cases, come out quite significantly ahead.

Re:Good thing

[init100]

IIRC, posts modded Funny does not give any karma bonus.

Re:Good thing

[Concern]

Nice pre-written bit of astroturf.

The only thing that's "clear" is that h.264 has hardly won anything yet. The round has not yet begun. Google controls youtube, and if they like VP8, and it happens to be free, look out world.

Just because Shuttleworth is buying some licenses for its OEM hardware partners does not mean you get proprietary codecs for free with your ubuntu download, unless you steal them. But this is like stealing a plastic bag. Why steal what someone else will give you for free?

Re:Good thing

[init100]

or demand them to add some Russian repositories in the apt-get config file so they can get unlicensed, pirated versions of those and break the law.

Unless the term piracy now also includes patent infringement those codecs aren't pirated. They are simply illegal to distribute in the United States because the US allows software patents, and the software is covered by such US patents. The codecs in questions are perfectly legal in any country where software is not patentable.

Re:Good thing

[c0d3g33k]

Exactly. And I am.

... but.

This doesn't exactly map onto "vote with your wallet". So how are we supposed to 'vote' in a meaningful way.

This is a serious question. Not buying a product and advising anyone who will listen to do the same is one thing, but how exactly does one provide negative feedback to an Free Software project?

Critical posts on blogs and forums may have a cathartic effect for those who need to vent, but these days they tend to be either ignored or played down as 'the blathering of the disgruntled'. In many communities, stepping too far away from the groupthink results in being banned from further participation. Banning wears the guise of maintaining order and keeping things on topic, but is quite an effective tool at suppressing dissent. Once the ban hammer falls, it's as if you never existed. Noone else can even come along and read your opinions and decide they agree with you. Chilling.

How exactly does a person communicate in a serious way that an open source project has jumped the shark?

What stick does one wield if monetary punishment is not a viable option? And "fork the code" is not the right answer. This is more about how communities communicate to the 'executive' team to produce a product that folks can be happy with.

Re:Good thing

[The End Of Days]

And if you're not a FOSS zealot, this isn't even a compromise. It's just a good idea.

Ideals are lovely, but in reality, people get compensated for their work.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

H264 has been playing without much problem under GNU/Linux for years, using free software ffmpeg, used notably by multimedia players MPlayer et VLC... The worst case generally was having to install a more recent version/snapshot, but distributions (like Gentoo) or trusted third-parties (there has always been at least one, for Debian and Ubuntu -currently it's notably Medibuntu) always had them supported, so it was quite easy.

The only real problem is still performances, but it is mostly a problem with older/cheaper machines and netbooks, and high-resolution videos like 1080p, and there are always ways to more or less lower quality to play it, and it's not *that* different on Windows, H264 being well known for being demanding anyway.

The Canonical move is mostly patent-related. It is little related to what is available in free and open source software. And even if you wanted to "respect the law" (if it is properly applied here, and if it is legitimate regarding far more fundamental rights and even simply rational in a good society), patents are not applicable everywhere in the world, so it is not even a global problem.

Re:Good thing

[c0d3g33k]

People like you are the reason corporations continue to gain control over our lives. People 'want' without being willing to accept the consequences. Or worse, they accept the consequences willingly (if they even understand the consequences of their actions, which is rare), condemning those few left with free will to either give up their freedom or participation in the Faustian bargain that is the mass market. If mass market acceptance is the measuring stick for the success of the "linux desktop", I hope it never succeeds.

Re:Good thing

[dfghjk]

If you are not the customer they are trying to reach then your voice doesn't matter and money doesn't always determine who they are trying to reach. What makes you think you have anything to say?

Re:Good thing

[timmarhy]

haha, wtf? throw it's weight behind google?!?! that's like saying that mouse should throw it's weight behind that elephant.

and news flash for you - linux is STILL the underdog, you've got next to no market share on the desktop which is ubuntu's target market. this illusion that linux is somehow winning is hurting you all more then helping, and frankly this is a brillant move by ubuntu because it'll mean their shit finally works with the most popular video format on the web.

Re:Good thing

[dfghjk]

That's what Apple has been saying recently. Look how it's hurting them.

Re:Good thing

[interval1066]

"Except that is already the case."

Right. The technical aspects of h.264 were never an issue, its always been about the licensing. I don't think this is necessarily any kind of an issue for end users so much. If you to keep your linux rig purely oss, then opt of of installing that driver. This is really an issue if you want to distribute ubuntu in your nifty new thingamabob product, puts in an extra layer of paperwork and licensing for that.
Now on the other hand, creeping non-oss is a little scary, I don't blame those who feel like a near-total freak out is in order. Canonical ultimately can do what it wants, but if it wants to keep serving the oss community (at least better than red hat did), its need to check this kind of activity to a minimum.

Re:Good thing

[timmarhy]

"The only thing that's "clear" is that h.264 has hardly won anything yet"

number of devices out there that support h.264 - millions and millions.

number of devices produced that support vp8 - none.

I declare h.264 the winner.

Re:Good thing

[shentino]

As long as MPEG LA is threatening all competing codecs equally with patent suits, we can't really win on ideology front, so let's go with the codec that is most popular and also happens to have ubiquitous hardware support.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://perian.org/

I guess that's just one hoop.

Re:Good thing

[timmarhy]

there's no consequences to having h.264 in unbuntu other then shit working like it should. you OSS hardliners just live in some weird parallel reality.

Re:Good thing

[Concern]

OK. easily 100x as many devices support earlier MPEG as h264. Is MPEG the double-super-special-winner?

Bluray and broadcast are not the issue here.

We are talking about the internet. The web. And marketshare. Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6 are the winners, and h264 is tiny, almost vanishing by comparison.

Apple, Microsoft and Adobe have their work cut out for them trying to force people off of free alternatives to h264. The folks behind this proprietary codec are kind of their own worst enemy - it would be very expensive and cumbersome for the world to switch to it. This is why a free codec is likely to win in the end, if any significant percentage of the users with a stake in it (such as youtube, and its viewers) get to choose.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh RIGHT...they're going to license H.264 and drag everyone into the license trap...

And these are the same people who don't have Sun's Java6 in the repository for Lucid and are forcing the use of the mostly non-functional "OpenJDK" and IcedTea.

(Yes, I'm aware you can GET it but it's not there by default and you have to futz around in the background. For Joe Idiot, OpenJDK is the default.)

Re:Good thing

[obarthelemy]

I disagree. I think
- Open Source should not be about less choice, but more. Are we bashing OOo for being somewhat compatible with MS's formats ? Or Linux for running on a proprietary architecture ?
- Proprietary formats are evil, underoptimized, expensive, buggy, risky long-term... Open Source should have no problems coming up with better alternatives. In this case, it seems there's a problem (hint !)
- This is Real Life, compromises must be made. Proprietary software, hardware, formats are everywhere. While rejecting any kind of proprietary stuff sounds right and/or cool, doing so would ensure almost nobody ever would choose any Open system: no MP3s, no MS Office docs, no Flash, almost no video, no SMB, ...

I'm anticipating the answer "yes, but in all those examples, the devs didn't pay ransom for a license". Indeed, but they paid for developing the features. In the end, it's money, time, talent... buying a license and getting the code may actually be cheaper, and free up resources for other projects. Even if it's not, being able to handle popular formats is probably necessary to get a foot in the door on home PCs, and later, when a better, open alternative to H.264 comes along, make the switch.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell the "consumers" to fuck off. Seriously, why am I supposed to care about "mass market" again? Sounds like you are preaching that everyone should just roll over so you can have what you want.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but stuff like this needs to happen for widespread adoption of Linux, to make it legit in the eyes of the masses.

To what end exactly?

Re:Good thing

[obarthelemy]

When I request a Linux feature, the usual response is "go develop it"... If you want Ubuntu, and the WWW, to not have to use H.264, the solution is easy: develop something better.

Re:Good thing

[arose]

number of devices out there that support h.264 - millions and millions.

Define 'support', does Baseline count? Sure enough, who would disagree? Does Baseline with additional restrictions count? No? Well the iPhone is out then? What's left that matters for the web?

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I want it to stay a niche -- with principles.

Re:Good thing

[SCPRedMage]

A long time ago, it did.

Re:Good thing

[SCPRedMage]

One hoop for informed users.

How many hoops do users have to jump through until they're "informed"?

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh... if you can't figure out how to add repositories or edit config files or use the command line, then you're too dumb and don't deserve to use Linux, and all of the amazing, high quality, well documented commercial software available for it - oh, wait...

Re:Good thing

[IshmaelDS]

I agree. The only thing is, no one is forcing you to use Ubuntu. If you don't want this, use a different distro, fork it yourself. I understand why alot of people are having an issue with this but Ubuntu has always been about the common use person. It's not the linux distro of the hardcore OSS users, nor is it for those that want to hack up their system. It's the linux distro that's hoping to make it onto the mass market and doing something like this will help it to do just that.

Re:Good thing

[jvillain]

Any distro that wants to licence h.264 is no longer available for free. They will have to charge for it. I know that is what the propriatary companies want. But more importantly it's h.264 today. What do we give up tomorrow? ODF? Do we start licensing MONO? What standards do we start doing away with? HTML?

To me Ubuntu has never been a part of the open source world. They have always shown that they are willing to throw the rest of the open source world under the bus if it will get them market share or help them generate more revenue. I have absolutely no doubt that Ubuntu will soon be wrapping it's self in all the DRM they need to be just like Microsoft and Apple. Even if that means locking you out of parts of the system to make it happen.

Re:Good thing

[aj50]

This isn't about open source, there exist completely open source decoders and encoders for h264.

This is about patents and the costs and consequences of licensing them.

Re:Good thing

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Amen. So because the vast majority don't care about freedom and patents, we should do their way? Doesn't make sense, sorry, I'm not buying into this. What you seem to miss is that, considering the amount of computers running Ubuntu, this could have influenced the full of Internet just a tiny bit. Now, this opportunity is over, thanks to the greediness of Ubuntu people.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

*yawn*

Re:Good thing

[mugurel]

To me this is not about fostering widespread adoption of linux (that is something we can all do in our own time), but rather about choosing a stance on patent-encumbered media standards. There is a debate going on, where big players (Apple, Google, Mozilla Foundation etc) are making up their minds about support for H.264. Deciding not to license H.264 is not introverted belly-button staring by FOSS-lovers, it's a statement in this debate that I would have liked Canonical to make.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of comments in this thread saying nothing more than "h.264 is the shit" and "Theora just doesn't have it", and they are being modded through the roof.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't exactly map onto "vote with your wallet". So how are we supposed to 'vote' in a meaningful way.

This is a serious question. Not buying a product and advising anyone who will listen to do the same is one thing, but how exactly does one provide negative feedback to an Free Software project?

In this case you don't use it. As Linux is used by more and more people, companies will want to start pre-loading it on their systems. Thing is, with so many distro's to chose from, companies aren't likely to just choose a Linux distro blindly and hope for the best. They are going to want to chose the Linux distro that it most used. And that is where you 'vote with your wallet'. If people don't like what the distro is doing they will voice it on the offical distro's forums and if ignored will jump to another distro. And which ever distro has the most users is most likely to succeed. So, don't like what the distro is doing? Leave it for another and with more and more doing that, the companies will just follow the crowd.

Re:Good thing

[Carl.E.Pierre]

Because that is what Ubuntu is striving for and it has been pretty obvious from the start.

If you do not like it(as I do not), I suggest you use one of other billion distros out there or fork Ubuntu(I already see a 'pure' version happening anyway)

Re:Good thing

[dunng808]

You want mass market? You have to include the things that people want, and with more video going to H.264 online, what are you supposed to tell the consumers? "Sorry, this doesn't jibe with the worldview that we hold and you don't understand or care about. ..."

This is not born out in the real world. Apple still refuses to put Flash on the iPhone / iPad. Microsoft has made switching browsers as hard as possible, and it took a federal lawsuit to force AT&T to allow customers to use their modems on the Bell phone system. The mp3.com web site was a popular and valuable promotional tool for indi artists (that is where I first heard Skylab 2000 and other European techno groups) until the US entertainment industry sued them into oblivion. No, big corporations do not give their mass market customers what they want. They really do say "I peece on you."

I am not a hard core FOSS guy, but I do agree with Stallman's reasons why software should be free. I was there when AT&T tried to kill BSD and claim all the Unix code as their own. More recently we saw something similar from SCO. We must not forget those lessons. If we allow all video to go closed source we will be pwned.

Re:Good thing

[natehoy]

This is a serious question. Not buying a product and advising anyone who will listen to do the same is one thing, but how exactly does one provide negative feedback to an Free Software project?

First, an apology: I've really worked hard to keep this post from sounding confrontational, and it's honestly intended not to be. However, some of my wording might not express this as clearly as I'd like. None of this is meant to offend you, or to criticize your opinions or preferences in any way.

The ideal answer is to find a distro that fits your needs, then donate effort or money toward forwarding the project you agree with. I mean this without intending offense when I say that there are plenty of other excellent penguins in the sea, and you will find one that is right for you.

Canonical apparently is not, based on your own comments. They accept feedback, they react to it, but they also need to make decisions, and not all of those decisions are going to agree with what everyone who uses their product wants. Their stated goal is to be easy to use and support as much hardware and software (including codecs) as they possibly can. This is what they do.

Canonical is not made up of GPL purists, nor are they made up of OSS purists. They've never, ever claimed to be, and I don't think they should be. They are made up of a group that is trying to make Linux a viable, useful alternative for people who would have a stroke if they had to pull up a command line, and what everything they want to do supported out of the box. Their target market wants MP3. They want ATI/nVidia binary support. They want H.264. And they want it all legal and legit. Which means it's a perfectly logical decision for Canonical to license these technologies where they need to.

There are many hundreds people with varying levels of comfort with (pick your topic: GPL/binaries/FOSS/IP-protected stuff) who have their own distros, and they've refused to install all the stuff they don't like. Many of those folks also work hard on reproducing or even reverse-engineering open source drivers and codecs of their own to avoid closed source and patent-protected stuff. Much of that goes to clean up other distros, even Ubuntu, which to a Linux purist is a poxy whore from the wrong side of the tracks, but to the average Linux newbie is a safe haven from CLI hell. Neither is wrong.

Canonical is forwarding the Linux movement in their own way, which is to get a copy of something that non-techies can live with on their desktops. And that includes support for things that people want to use. Things like MP3, H.264, FAT, NTFS, Adobe Acrobat, Flash, and the list goes on. That means a dumbed-down desktop, lots of GUI tools, a "user privilege escalation" (SUDO) model, and a lot of things that give Linux or GPL or OSS purists the screaming heebie jeebies. And that is exactly as it should be - Linux is FREEDOM, and not everyone should be forced into the same exact model.

What stick does one wield if monetary punishment is not a viable option?

You don't. Unless you've somehow contributed, you don't have any leverage with someone who's given you something for free with no conditions attached.

Canonical is making what they think people want. They have a reporting system, and people use it a lot. Just look at the angst and gnashing of teeth surrounding the "moved window controls to left" issue. They do accept feedback on their decisions. But not everyone agrees on everything all the time. Sometimes, a lead developer just says "you know what? I'm the head asshole in charge, I'm doing the work here, and I'm going to wade in and shut down this long discussion because it's my project, and I occasionally get to call the shots, and this is the way it's gonna be."

This is more about how communities communicate to the 'executive' team to produce a product that folks can be happy with.

Most of their target market is not going t

Re:Good thing

[dunng808]

True, but in practice many FOSS folk use "open source" to include "patent and royalty free." And, just to be clear, an open source program can, according to a few well placed people, infringe upon patents.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're trying to be more Wal-Mart than Wal-Mart, then I will just go to Wal-Mart.

Re:Good thing

[dunng808]

Canonical is not made up of GPL purists, nor are they made up of OSS purists. They've never, ever claimed to be, and I don't think they should be. They are made up of a group that is trying to make Linux a viable, useful alternative ...

And they accomplish this by starting with one of the purest open-source distros around -- Debian -- and then pissing all over it.

Re:Good thing

[shutdown -p now]

... but how exactly does one provide negative feedback to an Free Software project?

You just tell them (and anyone else willing to listen) what you think they do wrong, after moving elsewhere. If they don't think you have a point, why would you care?

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if i'm wrong but arn't codec patents valid in Europe because it's not just a method it's actually but rather the algorithms!?

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You want mass market? You have to include the things that people want

You mean like Apple is including Flash on iPad?

Sorry, this doesn't jibe with the worldview that we hold and you don't understand or care about. You just want to watch videos online, but we don't want that, so tough luck.

Funny, that seems to be exactly what Steve Jobs is telling me.

Re:Good thing

[u17]

What's wrong with OpenJDK? Isn't it 95% the same code as Sun's Java?

Re:Good thing

[aj50]

I don't think it's so much a question of can it infringe patents as does it infringe patents, does it matter and should we change anything because of it.

Incidentally, I suspect the answers are "almost certainly", "not in practise for most people" and "yes, we should ban software patents, they stifle creativity and raise the barrier to entry into markets".

Re:Good thing

[victorhooi]

heya,

Actually, there is. If you're short-sighted, you won't see that.

The MPEG-LA isn't a charity, and they'd nothing better than to lock people in, and then do a switch and change a la GIF.

That's not a bad thing, by any means - they have to make a living, after all (or rather, a living for all the corporations that have a patent in their patent pool)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

However, it's people like you who will condemn us to being locked in to these corporations. It's people that are a bit more long-sighted that gave us things like Linux, the BSDs, the GNU toolchain, and other OSS. Heck, even Apache and Perl, on which this site run wouldn't be around. We'd still be stuck with proprietary OSes, and applications stacks, and paying through our nose for everything we wanted to do or run on our systems. Competition is a good thing *grins*. Heck, even Google releases a stackload of software for free, do you think it could do that if everything was patent encumbered?

. Cheers, Victor

Re:Good thing

[i.r.id10t]

Some of us may not be using open source because it is open, but rather because it works and works well for what we need/want/desire out of our computer use.

I personally have no issue w/ non-free specialized software like the adobe stuff if that is the tool needed to do the job. I guess you could say I should own a mac, but unfortunately my willingness to use non-free stuff (if it is the best/only tool for the job) exceeds my willingness to pay big $ for the hardware to run it. So I go with the free (gratis) stuff that works well on inexpensive commodity hardware.

Re:Good thing

[aBaldrich]

>serving the oss community If I recall correctly, there was a google tech talk video about the companies who submit patches to the kernel and Canonical was mentioned a someone who did not contribute back to the community. Contributions are good, and ethically, they are the way to go. Gratis accepistis, gratis date. But it is not a legal obligation, and Canonical has shown that they can't care less.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Got a cite for that? Using a patent without permission is infringement. There is no personal use exemption.

Re:Good thing

[aBaldrich]

Except that Canonical is not limiting the number of things you can use your system for. It's adding functionalities.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You could start a blog called boycottubuntu.com and spam the blog with libel and hate speech like boycottnovell.com, I'm sure it'll work out well for you. You could probably even get Roy Schestowitz's help since he's already attacking Ubuntu over this.

Re:Good thing

[Patch86]

Why should you get to influence the Ubuntu project if you're not even a user any more?

You can use any distro that you wish. Distros that don't appeal to you no doubt appeal to others. If a project appeals to almost no-one then it will wither and die.

Specifically, I am an Ubuntu user. I want to be able to use new video standards, and I want to do so legally, and I want to do so without unnecessary technical fiddling. If you disagree then feel free to change distro, but don't demand that I can't have it my way too.

Re:Good thing

[walshy007]

or fork Ubuntu(I already see a 'pure' version happening anyway)

What, and wind up with debian unstable like what ubuntu has before it adds proprietary crap? seems rather superfluous. All of the serious innovation happens in fedora first anyway (early adopters get the bugs though).

Re:Good thing

[jmcvetta]

these are the same people who don't have Sun's Java6 in the repository for Lucid

You just need to enable the partner repository in the Software Sources control panel. Lucid has had sun-java6-jdk package available -- I know this because I have personally been using it -- at least since release day.

Re:Good thing

[Patch86]

How have they "pissed all over it"? Debian still exists, and is still thriving.

The very definition of open source is "you can take this code and do what you like with it (within legal limits)". You can't very well whine that they've done something you don't approve of with the code. If you want control over your source, keep it closed.

Re:Good thing

[jmcvetta]

What's wrong with OpenJDK? Isn't it 95% the same code as Sun's Java?

At least one of the various tools tools I use regularly has issues with OpenJDK, as of last year. Don't remember which one -- might have been Pentaho Data Integration, but please do not quote me on that -- because it was way easier for me just to use the Sun JDK and get on with work.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how the default behaviour is for Quicktime to inform the user that you can play MPG2 for the convenient price of $50.

Re:Good thing

[Yaa 101]

You are wrong, hereby stand corrected, I was one of the people protesting against software patents in Europe and to this day there are no valid software patents, even though various national patent bureaus act differently and are issuing illegal software patents.

Re:Good thing

[walshy007]

A lot of hardcore FOSS advocates want everything to go open source, but they refuse to see things as they are.

There are open source implementations of h264 just fine, open source is not the issue. Patents are. Patents on software are basically patents on math, and patents on ideas. Which completely corrupted the very concept of patents (designed to be only given on implementations of ideas.. in this instance already covered by copyright).

There are many oss advocates out there that wany everything they use to be oss, but really don't give a crap about software patents. Since if every company followed them, the industry as it is would be destroyed.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

h264 is tiny, almost vanishing by comparison.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/02/apple-vs-adobe-is-flash-dying/

Gee, look at that chart. FLV and VP6 are crashing down, while H.264 is all the way up going from 30 percent last year to over two thirds of web video this year...

If people are astroturfing here, you on the other hand are drowning in your own Kool-aid.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you feel like jumping through hoops, try playing a generic MPEG2 file on a Mac.

Not a hoop in sight, nor are any leaps neccessary. It plays fine on OS X in Quicktime, VLC and a few other choice bits of software.

Now, encoding MPEG2 requires a trip through a hoop, as there's some licensing in the way...

Re:Good thing

[victorhooi]

heya,

Yes, but people like you don't seem to realise, this isn't about the actual code for the H264 encoders/decoders. These have already been written by OSS coders, with just the specs and without having access to any of the code made by proprietary companies.

It's about the patents that are behind it - and then we open the whole can of worms on software patents. So no, it's not about people being compensated for their work, it's about corporations having large portfolios of patents, which they can use to bully anybody who tries to write their own H264 decoder. That's why we have the freedom to install codec outside the US, but inside the US, well, you have to use our servers outside your lovely country *grins*.

Cheers, Victor

Re:Good thing

[infinitelink]

Wanted to add to your comment's other replies. Ubuntu has taken the lead and shown "Debian, how it should be"--not in the sense of "you shouldn't be purist", but rather "you're design-by-committee stance has been too slow, ineffective, etc.", not by saying it aloud, they've surely cooperated heavily, but by demonstrating it. Ubuntu has been a refreshing influence for Debian, and after having gone so far ahead that they lost binary compatibilities, they're even willing to work together with it to bring things back together.

I'd personally like to see more reverse of that influence: more tidiness, speed, etc., in Ubuntu: not less features, necessarily, (though those can cause the loss of speed), but rather higher code quality. I believe that Ubuntu's work, besides being from the "unstable" category branch of Debian, does indeed contribute back to Unstable, however, so maybe that's less of a problem--and that also depends on how much Debian accepts: I hope they'll increasingly accept more and improve upon the quality, implementations, etc., to round-out and enrich their base distro: Debian is, after all, a huge storehouse, and little more, for a bunch of software that's not really all that usable, tightly integrated, etc., but "available" for others to take and modify, improve upon, etc., as-needed: that's its strength. Usability is Ubuntu's, and I believe that strength is a benefit to Debian.

Here's to hoping for a stronger cooperative, collaborative, ecosystem of code, with many ideas and implementations, and where the smartest (for the environment) wins out among the Democratic in terms of user-numbers, while the right tool for the right jobs wins-out in case-by-case situations. : )

p.s. I realize I used "etc." a lot. : (

Re:Good thing

[LingNoi]

Open Source should have no problems coming up with better alternatives. In this case, it seems there's a problem (hint !)

In fact you're wrong. I can play H264 on my Ubuntu jaunty box just fine. This is simply about licensing the codec for OEM legal use. Ubuntu has never had problems actually playing the video for a long time.

when a better, open alternative to H.264 comes along, make the switch.

You mean like the one that has been in Ubuntu for years?

Re:Good thing

[infinitelink]

Gee, they provide the most usable end-user distro despite the flailing, ineffectiveness, and vitriol of the community they work within; they sponsor other FOSS projects heavily; they hire people from various other parts of the FOSS community knowing that by making sure those people have jobs they not only get improvement in their own distro, but those people can keep working in their respective FOSS projects' code-bases.

The Kernel is not all there is nor all that matters, and relatively speaking the kernel is of the most interest and benefit to the huge private corporations, while the stuff Canonical touches is of the most interested to the regular users--and even not-so-regular, however--alike.

Re:Good thing

[BobPaul]

Look up some basic patent definitions; you don't even need to get into patent law.

Patents protect the owners from others selling/distributing infringing products. They give the patent owners a monopoly on the sale/distribution of these products. A competing company, however, is free to product infringing products for internal testing, etc as long as they don't distribute them in anyway. This is why you see generic drugs appear on the market the DAY the patents expire. They completed their FCC testing using infringing copies of the patented drugs, using the patent as a a design guide, no less. This is legal because the drugs are only used for study and any not used by study participants are destroyed. The company doesn't sell the infringing drugs, or even distribute them freely, until the patents expire (at which point they aren't infringing).

Drugs certainly aren't an exception by any means, and all patented items fall under the same laws. Generics of all popular products release as soon as the original patents expire if competitors haven't found non-infringing work arounds. They don't appear months afterwards because they already designed against the patent and tested, waiting for their chance to sell.

Re:Good thing

[bit01]

there's no consequences

Of course there are consequences. A closed source cartel becomes more firmly entrenched, money gets redirected away from more worthwhile things, a free market is stunted etc.

Fanatics like you, those who claim OSS people are somehow more hardline than e.g. businesses that have an M$ only policy, really need to expose themselves to alternative points of view more.

---

Commercial software bigots - a dying breed.

Re:Good thing

[LingNoi]

you've got next to no market share on the desktop which is ubuntu's target market

That's a pretty stupid statement. Having no market share would mean no one anywhere uses it. I use it so Ubuntu must have some market share.

this is a brillant move by ubuntu because it'll mean their shit finally works with the most popular video format on the web.

Another clueless idiot.. Ubuntu has had h.264 for years. The news is that they're just licensing it for legal use by OEMs.

Re:Good thing

[WeatherGod]

Canonical does not do many kernel patches. However, they are a major contributer to the desktop environment. In addition, the "patches submitted" metric might be misleading. The focus with the Ubuntu community has been diagnosis of problems (if possible), and upstreaming bug reports with as much detail and information as possible. That is a perfectly valid contribution to the Linux community in my book, especially given the variety of hardware configuration that Ubuntu encounters.

Re:Good thing

[FatdogHaiku]

Turning your back on Ubuntu won't turn you into some sort of Linux-Amisher.

Man that just sets my brain whiling trying for the correct term... something mixing Luddite and Linux...
Luddux?
Linudite?
Linudux?

Re:Good thing

[natehoy]

Ah, but fortunately "pissing all over it" in the Linux world means the original is still there, safe, secure, and quite unaffected.

Well, except where Ubuntu has submitted significant bug fixes back the Debian. If that's "pissing all over" something, then I need to start getting pissed on.

This is how Linux works. Everyone gets to play with copies of the same code. Some people play with it one way, some people play with it another. Everyone who pays attention sees opportunities to adapt what others are doing, or do the same thing a different way they feel is better.

It's like kids in a sandbox. As long as everyone gets to play with all the sand, various kids watch and learn from each other. One child adds a little water and says "look! I can model this!" Other children either emulate it and optimize sand/water ratios for various types of modeling, decide that modeling sand isn't their thing and go about their business, or (in the case of comments like the one I am replying to) scream "THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU DO WITH SAND!!!! STOP THAT!! YOU'RE WRONG!!! WET SAND IS WRONG!!! SAND SHOULD BE PURE!!!"

You can't do anything bad to a Linux distro unless you somehow corrupt its master source management tool. You can make your own copy, and you can do something with it that the original author might not like, but since the "original author" is using a codebase that is the result of the work of many thousands of people over decades, no one person gets to dictate what constitutes proper use, and what constitutes pissing all over it. As long as all of the users comply with the appropriate licensing requirements behind the code they are using (GPL, LGPL, trademarks on specific distro names, artwork copyright, etc), the original author has no say over how his or her code is eventually adapted and applied.

That's what "Open Source" means. Anyone can do anything they want with the source, and as long as they share their work when asked, no one can tell them not to. Not Linus Torvalds, and certainly not user "dunng808" at Slashdot.

Re:Good thing

[Draek]

Let me get this straight: you have to go to a third-party website and download a plugin unsupported by Apple to play MPEG-2 files on MacOSX? a codec that fucking Windows 98 over a decade ago could play out of the box? and this is the OS that's allegedly "so easy grandma can use it"?

I understand it with some Linux distros that prefer to maintain the legal freedom of its distro rather than support legally-encumbered codecs and, as such, don't support many of the popular formats out there, but OSX is closed-source and maintained by an extremely wealthy business so they really have no excuse.

Worse yet, it only works for 10.4.7 and above, so anybody with hardware outside the very small list of hardware Apple approves for it is screwed. Yay for closed-source!

Re:Good thing

[Draek]

So is Microsoft. After all, they don't prevent you from installing another browser, they just make it *damned* hard to remove the one they put in there first.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why I use Ultimate Edition. It comes with all the codecs and support for most proprietary plugins.

Not that I'm shilling for the distro. it's kinda big, but I have newer hardware.

The point stands that if it works, I don't care if it's open or closed source. I just want it to work.

I will have to reserve judgement on the h.264 codec, since Google just open-sources VP8.

Re:Good thing

[Draek]

And, just to be clear, an open source program can, according to a few well placed people, infringe upon patents.

Everything non-trivial can infringe upon somebody else's patents, and probably does.

Hell, even a bunch of trivialities are patented so even in that case you aren't entirely safe either. Ahh well, that's what happens when you allow people to 'own' mathematics, the world warned you all about it yet you still went and did it. Sucks to be you.

Re:Good thing

[aqk]

Does this mean they will be offering Skype also?

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This is a SMART move. If any Linux distro wants to move forward and make way on more desktops you will need to make such a move. Otherwise you sit as another niche ubergeek world.

Re:Good thing

[Compaqt]

What I don't understand is how Ubuntu (or OEMs) could take a GNU/Linux base, add non-free and patented components, and sell the result as a unit.

Doesn't the GPL prevent this?

This is different from what happens now: The base install is free, but there are links provided or you are prompted to install non-free software if you so choose (like MP3 codecs or Nvidia drivers).

Re:Good thing

[Compaqt]

The way some people are saying "just do what people want", I would think that they'd cheer even more if Ubuntu just stopped distributing Linux and became an MS Windows OEM and wholesaler.

Re:Good thing

[smash]

If you feel like jumping through hoops, try playing a generic MPEG2 file on a Mac.

Download/install Perian.

Done. Next. It even auto-updates for new codec support. That wasn't too many hoops to jump through? Something I figured out within half an hour as a brand new mac user.

Re:Good thing

[smash]

Its listed on apple's own software page. If you can't do something with software you have, you look for an alternative. Be it playing video, writing an office document or whatever.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is FREEDOM

Wait a minute there, you're distorting the meaning of free. Freedom in software means the right to:
# Run the program
# Study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (Access to the source code)
# Redistribute copies
# Distribute copies of your modified versions to others

Don't distort the philosophy and the model so proprietary or patented software works into it. It just doesn't. Obviously what Canonical does is legal but the users still lose their freedom.

Re:Good thing

[smash]

Have fun not being able to use your box for plenty of stuff.

Re:Good thing

[Artemis3]

Break law? Which Law? US Law? My country does not accept software patents so I'm not breaking any law by using VLC or Mplayer.
Also you are mixing "open source" with patents. In those few countries where you have to pay a license to reproduce or encode, if you do pay them, you are legally entitled to use Free Software. You don't have to use THEIR player or encoder.

BTW you don't have to use "russian" repositories to add patented codecs playback, because it is not illegal to use them, even if you live in one of those corporate regimes, you could have paid the license to use the codecs by yourself. In Ubuntu's case, all you do is install the package called "ubuntu-restricted-extras"; it might be illegal to use in your place, only if you didn't pay the licenses.

The issues with h264 are the same with many other codecs, including the infamous mp3 format. If Canonical has the financial might to pay annual license fees for every patented codec out there, then be my guest, i don't worry tho i don't need it; but at least people would stop complaining why these formats won't play out of the box.

Re:Good thing

[cyberthanasis12]

So use another distro if you object.

Certainly.

Re:Good thing

[walshy007]

What I don't understand is how Ubuntu (or OEMs) could take a GNU/Linux base, add non-free and patented components, and sell the result as a unit. Doesn't the GPL prevent this?

Not at all, so long as they provide source for all the gpl licensed things, people are free to write commercial software for linux just fine.

Using linux syscalls does not make a program gpl, linking to a gpl library does, but that's what the lgpl is for and why most libraries are under the lgpl.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

or demand them to add some Russian repositories in the apt-get config file so they can get unlicensed, pirated versions of those and break the law.

You are confusing something here. If you think codecs in other distros are pirated version of some commercial, propietary codec, you're wrong. MPEG LA owns exactly zero lines of code in these codecs. It's all about patents only.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Take the best from both worlds?" A nice little bit of freedom here, and a nice little bit of being sodomized by greedy corporations there? Ubuntu is simply betraying its "Ubuntu will always be free" lies; at least in the sense of "free software" that matters. So Ubuntu is "freeware" now? LOL. You might as well stick to Windows, if you're into being sodomized: it has more games and better driver support.

Re:Good thing

[takev]

Actually you can buy the mpeg2 codec from apple as well.
        http://www.apple.com/quicktime/mpeg2/

It costs $19.99, I guess most of that goes to mpeg2 licensing or something, which is why they are not including it in the main os. Maybe Microsoft has a better deal with them.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you are the reason that desktop Linux will never really take off.

I don't care.

You want mass market?

No, I want linux on my desktop, where I already have it, both at work and at home.

You have to include the things that people want, and with more video going to H.264 online, what are you supposed to tell the consumers? "Sorry, this doesn't jibe with the worldview that we hold and you don't understand or care about. You just want to watch videos online, but we don't want that, so tough luck."

Luckily I'm in Europe so I don't even have to ignore the local patent law. For you in the U.S., I recommend crossing your fingers that reason will eventually win out.

Re:Good thing

[timbo234]

or demand them to add some Russian repositories in the apt-get config file so they can get unlicensed, pirated versions of those and break the law.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post but this part is just FUD. Firstly, the x264 project is not pirated software, it's an open source implementation of H264. Secondly, and most important, software patents are only really valid in one country with particularly skewed laws, the USA. Even there you'd need to spend minimum US$1 million on a patent lawsuit to see if the patent is even valid, let alone whether it applies to someone using it privately on a home computer.

I don't know about Ubuntu but for Opensuse the patented media codecs are hosted by the Packman project, a perfectly legitimate packaging project based in Germany that provides around 5000 extra packages that aren't in the main Opensuse repo.

Re:Good thing

[init100]

even though various national patent bureaus act differently and are issuing illegal software patents.

Since the directive was scrapped, there are no EU rules for or against software patents. This means that it is up to the national governments to decide whether they are legal or not. If they decide that they are legal, the patent office is hardly issuing "illegal patents".

On the other hand, there sure is the European Patent Convention, which expressly forbids patents on software, though patent offices and patent attorneys argue that since the convention says "software as is", it only means the actual code. Thus they argue that it does not preclude patenting the effect the software has when executed in a computer.

But, what do I know, IANAL. :)

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

'next to no' is not the same as 'no'

silly rabbit.

Re:Good thing

[tehcyder]

IIRC, posts modded Funny does not give any karma bonus.

No, but if you're lucky someone mods a joke as +1 informative

Re:Good thing

[tehcyder]

It means an Ubuntu PC will work with the majority of sites on the Internet while yours won't. Now you can moan about that as much as you like, but 99% of people just don't care - they just want their PC to work.

Shouldn't Canonical port Internet Explorer 6 to Linux then?

Re:Good thing

[vegiVamp]

> Why steal what someone else will give you for free?

For the thrill of it, like any good kleptomaniac will tell you.

Re:Good thing

[someone1234]

It is utterly irrelevant to me, though i use Ubuntu. I didn't pay for it, i don't even remember how i got it :)
I don't give a flying fuck if Canonical wanted to waste money on a license i don't need.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why you use windows.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you are the reason that desktop Linux will never really take off.

Who says we want it to? People like me are happy with linux just the way it is. It always seems to be Windows users complaining about how Linux needs to change to suit them. You know what? Fuck off.

Re:Good thing

[TheTurtlesMoves]

If you are in the USofA then its illegal to do so. Including playing back a DVD. On top of that this deal is *only* for preinstalled copies on PCs etc. This deal does not include redistribution or even downloaded copies. Aka almost all of it.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clearly Liddite.

Re:Good thing

[westlake]

We are talking about the internet. The web. And marketshare. Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6 are the winners, and h264 is tiny, almost vanishing by comparison.

We are talking about cell phone video.

Webcams.

Camcorders.

The Flip Pocket HD at $125. The Sony Handicam at $3500. A casual search of Google Shopping returns 3,600 hits for "H.264 camcorder."

Industrial and home security video. "H.264 WiFi Camera," 1,200 hits.

We are talking about services like Netflix and Hulu. Home video standards matter when the decoder is built into your Internet enabled HDTV, video game console, Blu-Ray player or STB.

That decoder will be H.264 not Sorenson Spark.

We are talking about hardware accelerated H.264 video in Flash and Silverlight.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian never was pure. Nowhere even close, including and sanctioning an official non-free repo makes them nothing but hypocritical assholes.

Re:Good thing

[Speare]

Unless the term piracy now also includes patent infringement those codecs aren't pirated. They are simply illegal to distribute in the United States because the US allows software patents, and the software is covered by such US patents. The codecs in questions are perfectly legal in any country where software is not patentable.

Okay, I guess the proper term for this kind of transfer of goods is smuggling, then.

Re:Good thing

[Concern]

We are talking about cell phone video. Webcams. Camcorders.

Well, you are. It's irrelevant, but be my guest.

We are talking about hardware accelerated H.264 video in Flash and Silverlight.

Ah and now you're back to web video again.

Yeah, that'll be widely adopted. In Adobe and Microsoft's dreams.

No one wants commercial codec lock-in - except those guys. There's no value in it for anyone else but them. The difference is that, even unlike vector animation systems like Flash (vs. HTML5's alternative), the video encoding situation with these proprietary codecs has been particularly painful for content producers. And they are pissed, and heading for the exits.

Objectively, this FUD campaign is a waste of time and money. I don't really think patent extortion is going to prevent it either (though the lawyers with fees on the line will tell you otherwise, of course). Apple has a prison platform in the iphone and ipad, so they can lock out VP8 and Theora, but on MacOS and Windows and Android and every other device they can't keep the open codec off the client. Multiple encodings have been the state of affairs for a while, so no one needs to choose... just gradually even Apple could find themselves out in the cold, with many places on a budget opting to do the single cheapest transcode for the biggest audience - to the open standard codec. You know, the same one youtube uses.

I don't see how you'll stop it, frankly.

Re:Good thing

[danieltdp]

Or you can *uninstall* the frickin' codec with a one liner ("sudo apt-get remove ").

Re:Good thing

[Tak_1]

I only switched to Mac a few years ago, and I thought EVERYONE knew about Perian. It even negates the need for that stupid "Flip4Mac" garbage Microsoft wishes we would use. I never have codec issues playing anything, or encoding for that matter.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"We are talking about the internet. The web. And marketshare. Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6 are the winners, and h264 is tiny, almost vanishing by comparison."

"Apple, Microsoft and Adobe have their work cut out for them trying to force people off of free alternatives to h264."

I've never seen a Sorenson Spark or On2 VP6 file that I'm aware of...ever. One of the sites I visit does have quicktime and windows media, flash and h264..maybe others. But I guess my point here is that normal people don't pay that much attention...they see the brands they know (quicktime, WM, Flash, h264) and that's it. Maybe I have seen the ones you mention but I'm not super-hip w/ OGG and Theodore..er whatever...sounds like a foreign gay couple, Ogg and Theodore...

All my stuff is h264 now. When iTunes switched away from converting to mp3 by default I was skeptical but it didn't take many listens to be able to hear the quality difference. Now I put in a 8GB DVD and convert the main feature down to 1-2GB so I can have a small movie library on a USB stick..

I haven't paid extra to be able to use h264 so the "it's not free" argument doesn't really work for me. My current software isn't going to stop letting me convert to h264 and most everything can play the files....If nothing else, the computer I'm using will always be able to play and make h264 content and I didn't pay a cent extra for it.

Since it didn't cost me anything, it's working great and there's obviously going to be ongoing support for the h264...I might as well use it.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't do anything bad to a Linux distro unless you somehow corrupt its master source management tool.

Not quite accurate... the trick with open source is that you can't do anything bad *to the source or binaries*. You can, however, create easy to update, flashy sub-projects that pull active developers off of one distro on to another, where they end up developing code that can't, for one reason or another, be patched back into the original project.

In this case, that'd be along the lines of Canonical hiring a bunch of the major Debian contributors to work on the Ubuntu branch, to the detriment of Debian. "That's not bad at all," you might think, "they're still modifying the same source, and it'll find its way back." However, if enough of this happens, there will no longer be enough people managing the Debian base to make development worthwhile for more of the developers (too much work for result) -- resulting in MORE people switching to developing for Ubuntu and "making available" to the now non-existent Debian group, should they want to merge the changes back in. At this point, Ubuntu decides that Debian isn't accepting enough of its changes back in and is moving too slowly, so they fork instead of branching, taking the developers with them. Now it's no longer a trivial matter to contribute changes back from Ubuntu to Debian, so people stop doing it altogether.

End result? Debian goes from being an amazing base for a bunch of linux distros to being a has-been distro with a small team of hard-core purists still working on it, but unable to keep up with the rate of development in more popular distributions.

Kind of like if a bunch of kids decide that ALL the sand should be wet so they can do their modeling, leaving the kids who just want to play in the sand out of luck as they no longer have any dry sand to play with.

Re:Good thing

[jim_v2000]

>They're signing up now when this thing isn't even GPL compatible. Do you have any diea what that means?

It means nothing.

Re:Good thing

[FreeBooteR01]

Or you can choose a fricken OS like Archlinux that puts you in charge and install what you want, instead of removing all the garbage.

Re:Good thing

[Simetrical]

Unless the term piracy now also includes patent infringement those codecs aren't pirated. They are simply illegal to distribute in the United States because the US allows software patents, and the software is covered by such US patents. The codecs in questions are perfectly legal in any country where software is not patentable.

The MPEG-LA claims H.264 patents in many European countries, including at least: Germany, France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia. Probably more.

Has your lawyer told you that none of these patents will stand up in court in your country? Or is it your own personal expertise that allows you to know what's patentable better than your country's patent office?

Re:Good thing

[Simetrical]

Secondly, and most important, software patents are only really valid in one country with particularly skewed laws, the USA. Even there you'd need to spend minimum US$1 million on a patent lawsuit to see if the patent is even valid, let alone whether it applies to someone using it privately on a home computer.

I don't know about Ubuntu but for Opensuse the patented media codecs are hosted by the Packman project, a perfectly legitimate packaging project based in Germany that provides around 5000 extra packages that aren't in the main Opensuse repo.

The MPEG-LA claims patents in Europe just as in America. Here are some of the ones they have in Germany, following that link: 69129595, 69130329, 3767919, 50306371.1, 50305419, 50311129.5, 69127504, 69109346.6 . . . well, that's going up to page 8 out of 56, and I got bored.

Hey, maybe these are all so frivolous that the MPEG-LA wouldn't even bother suing. But I wouldn't bet on that unless a German patent lawyer has told you so. If the patent office granted them, you'd think a judge would uphold at least some of them, and you only need one to be in big trouble. Packman probably gets away with it because it doesn't have enough money to be worth suing, not because it's actually abiding by the law.

Re:Good thing

[timbo234]

As the comments on that link point out though software patents still aren't legally enforceable in the EU. The fact that the EPO is granting patents doesn't make them necessarily legally valid - such patents may very well be attempts to skirt the law by disguing software patents as process patents for example. Any claims would have to be tested in (expensive, time consuming) court cases.

I live in Germany and have made some minor contributions to Packman and I don't agree with the accusation that using patented software in this part of the world is not abiding by the law. On the contrary since software patents are not allowed in the EU any claim to patent protection on software would have to go through a court case to prove that it's not actually a software patent, but something deserving protection under some other part of patent law in the EU.

(Usual disclaimer IANAL etc.)

Re:Good thing

[thetoadwarrior]

Isn't the point of Linux that it is free and open and someone, like Canonical, can do what they want with it. If you don't like it you can do what you want with it?

I fail to see what the problem is.

Re:Good thing

[LWATCDR]

Jumping through hoops is having to turn on the repositories that have it and reading the legal warning.
Not a big deal to you and eye but to some people it is.
This is for "pre installed" Ubuntu systems so they can deliver it on the PC.
If they put the free H.264 codec on the machine it would be a very dangerous thing for them to do legally.

It is not mindless fud but the simple truth.
Hey NOBODY would like to see the end of software patents more than I would but they are currently the law.
I am not going to bust a companies chops for trying to deliver a good Linux experience to end users and avoiding a massive law suite that could shut them down!
So I suggest that you pull your head out of the sand and understand what the situation for what it is.

Re:Good thing

[DurendalMac]

Except that Linux is fighting a massive uphill battle. MS has the advantage and Apple has an unstoppable marketing machine. You're comparing very different things here.

Re:Good thing

[DurendalMac]

Why do people keep bring up the iPad? That's completely irrelevant to the point. You can still watch Youtube and many other videos online with one, and Apple has an unmatched marketing machine that could sell iDildos to uptight Christian fundies. Apple also has enough market momentum in the mobile space to get developers to use other standards. HTML5 is moving along thanks largely to Apple.

Re:Good thing

[DurendalMac]

Except that Linux gaining desktop market share = better drivers, better hardware support, more software, etc, etc. Gee, that's awful! Why would you want that? Until then, enjoy not being able to grab an 802.11n card off the shelf and actually use it. Are you really this goddamned shortsighted?

Re:Good thing

[BikeHelmet]

Firefox has better compatibility than IE6, now. :/

Re:Good thing

[BikeHelmet]

We are talking about the internet. The web. And marketshare. Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6 are the winners, and h264 is tiny, almost vanishing by comparison.

Could you back that up with some examples? Every site I know of that does video streaming uses H.264

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

In IPTV, H264 is a clear winner, providing almost 100% of the live channels and VoD in new projects.

In Over the top, the winner is flash today, html5 trying to disrupt things a bit.

In file sharing the winner today is divx and and xvid, but please remember this is derived from H264 ...

One last thing, I see people here comparing H264 and mpeg, H264 is mpeg4 part 10, so let's not oppose mpeg and H264.

Re:Good thing

[Concern]

I hoped I could find you a market share survey, but unfortunately nothing came up easily just on Google. So here is what I recommend.

Get Firefox and a flash video downloader add-on. And then start downloading some flash videos from various sites and check them out. By volume most of the flash video sites have not upgraded and transcoded to support F9's h264. The enormous time, expense, and difficulty, together with the diminishing quality returns (VP6 is "pretty good") guarantee it.

Lastly, the thing to consider is where the audience is. Google and Youtube are by far the web's largest source of h264 video views. I would venture to guess even a multiple of all the other sources put together. So if they were to over time prefer another codec - you can see what might have the MPEG-LA shareholders a bit put out.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

.ogg didn't win over
p3 even though it is free and not encumberd by paid for licenced material. The reason I feel is that not many players supported it. H.264 will probably end up the same as mp3. As every commercial and propritary browser will support it it will win over the free codec if you have to add support via a plugin.

Re:Good thing

[mehemiah]

isnt' this more like linux orthodoxy. Say, ascetic (Hasidim)?

WHY?

[blackraven14250]

Since the general goal of Ubuntu is to reach out to the average computer user, rather than the power user or enterprise as most other distributions aim for, the question of "Why did they license a codec that most major companies are throwing support behind?" shouldn't really need to be asked.

Re:WHY?

[mcvos]

Even so, I seem to remember that some years ago, Ubuntu was extremely purist, not even showing the Firefox logo on Firefox because it was a trademark. And now they license patented tech.

Re:WHY?

[AvitarX]

I'm pretty sure they didn't display it because they made changes to it and mozilla said "this ain't our firefox"

Since then they changed it to mozilla's firefox with ubuntu extensions installed.

Re:WHY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even so, I seem to remember that some years ago, Ubuntu was extremely purist, not even showing the Firefox logo on Firefox because it was a trademark.

Wasn't that because of Mozilla's usage restrictions, not some general principle about trademarks?

Re:WHY?

[EvilIdler]

It was an issue with their EULA;
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/ubuntu-firefox-eula-dustup-reignites-oss-licensing-debate.ars

Re:WHY?

[QuantumRiff]

yes, and now Ubuntu offers to download and install my Nvidia and AMD/ATI video drivers for me, which are proprietary.

And Ubuntu's marketshare has been going very much up. I don't miss then days when you had to modify the x11 files to get your NVidia driver to work. I look at it as a benefit.

Re:WHY?

[drolli]

Yes. I am not the average user. However i appreciated for example that my Dell Mini 9, preinstalled Ubuntu, contained, for example, a DVD player, which worked out of the box (it not like i would not find CSS ridiculous). So, if a netbook sold with windows contains licenses for essential codes, then i also appreciate it if the same model contains these codes when sold with Linux.

Re:WHY?

[gullevek]

Well Nvidia was never a problem to install. Just download the file from their homepage and run it. Never had a problem, even with my non-stock kernel on my debian box here.

Closed Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

H.264 is a spec. How can a spec be closed-source?

Re:Closed Source?

[keeboo]

Some people are confusing patent issues with closed-sourcedness.

Re:Closed Source?

[jedidiah]

Open source represents a freedom to use and create derivative works.

If there is a patent legal landmine, then clearly the freedom to use and create derivatives has gone straight out the Window.

If Ubuntu has to worry about being SUED for including something then it really isn't Free Software. It's not the fault of the coders. However, the problem still remains.

Re:Closed Source?

[node 3]

Open source represents a freedom to use and create derivative works.

...

If Ubuntu has to worry about being SUED for including something then it really isn't Free Software.

Those two terms aren't interchangeable. What you mention in the first sentence is not a defining aspect of Open Source, but is a defining aspect of Free Software.

Re:Closed Source?

[russotto]

Those two terms aren't interchangeable. What you mention in the first sentence is not a defining aspect of Open Source, but is a defining aspect of Free Software.

Both Open Source (as defined by the Open Source Initiative) and Free Software (as defined by FSF) demand freedom to use and create derivative works.

Re:Closed Source?

[arose]

The OSI disagrees with you, not that it will stop you from trying to bend the definition to where you want it to be...

Re:Closed Source?

[lennier]

Some people are confusing patent issues with closed-sourcedness.

This is why software freedom is a more useful term, because it doesn't just require the source to be available, but that it not contain any legal encumbrances - copyright, patent, trademark or any others - which prevent end-user modification and redistribution with the same rights as they received.

Re:Closed Source?

[ClosedSource]

In the case of FSF, "GPL software" is a better term than "software freedom" because the FSF has its own unique definition of "freedom" with respect to software.

On the other hand, the term "GPL software" merely means software licensed under the GPL and thus avoids any debate about the meaning of "freedom".

Re:Closed Source?

[LingNoi]

If Ubuntu has to worry about being SUED for including something then it really isn't Free Software. It's not the fault of the coders. However, the problem still remains.

Canonical doesn't have to worry about being sued for including patented code. Canonical is based on the Isle of Man and has servers in the UK. Software Patents do not effect them in the slightest.

This move is purely for OEM distributors in the US.

heh

[Pojut]

Wine all you want, open-source fanatics. Our HTPCs are getting quite a nice boost in usability.

Re:heh

[ClickOnThis]

Wine all you want, open-source fanatics.

[Emphasis mine.] I think you meant whine. Oh wait, maybe you didn't.

Re:heh

[Abcd1234]

Damn right I'll wine! It works great!

Re:heh

[maxume]

What? You go out of your way to make sure you are respecting software patents on systems that no one other that you is ever likely to mess around with? Really?

Re:heh

[jedidiah]

> Wine all you want, open-source fanatics. Our HTPCs are getting quite a nice boost in usability.

Binary nvidia drivers do that, not a rather redundant patent license.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Re:heh

[jmcvetta]

Wine all you want, open-source fanatics

Remember friend, without those "fanatics", there would be no Free Software for you to enjoy.

Re:heh

[LingNoi]

Sorry to burst your bubble but Ubuntu has had h.264 support for years. It's just they're now licensing the patent for OEM use.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

It by "works great" you mean silently crashes and refuses to open programs, then hell yeah! It's awesome.

Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The writing's on the wall here, kids. H.264 is where web video is going.

Theora's a non-starter, and unless VP8 is stunning as fuck and Google indemnifies everyone and his kid brother against lawsuits, it's not going anywhere either.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[calmofthestorm]

It'd be easier to fight h264 if it weren't so damn good.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Khyber]

"H.264 is where web video is going."

That's what you think. I don't know about you but I was in direct contact with MPEG-LA lawyers recently about their licensing terms (confusion over what constituted commercial use,) and given the terms of their licensing as stated and clarified directly to me, I'll not be surprised to see many, many sites ditching H.264 in favor of something free. You may think theora's a non-starter but you know what, you're all focused on technical limitations and other bullshit when you should worry about "DOES IT FUCKING WORK OR NOT?" That answer is yes, and since it does work, it's viable enough.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story, bro! Tell it again!

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[CowboyBob500]

This old rubbish AGAIN. I wish people would stop spouting such misinformed garbage. From Wikipedia:-

In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use.

Basically, MPEG-LA only has jurisdiction in the US, so whilst that tough for you guys over there, in the rest of the world no-one has to pay them a bean. It is free to use on your website. And given that the rest of the world is clearly a majority of the people on the internet, firstly you're pissing into the wind, and secondly your mistaken in the fact that you think that the rest of the world cares.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[roca]

The MPEG-LA pool has many H.264 "method" patents in Europe and other countries. Many European companies pay royalties to license those patents. You can argue that all those patents are invalid, but you'd probably have to fight a very large lawsuit to prove it.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[node 3]

I don't know about you but I was in direct contact with MPEG-LA lawyers recently about their licensing terms (confusion over what constituted commercial use,) and given the terms of their licensing as stated and clarified directly to me, I'll not be surprised to see many, many sites ditching H.264 in favor of something free.

H.264 is not going away. Those that make money from it can afford the license. For those that don't, it is free. There's no way at all that any major commercial site is going to ditch H.264 for Theora. None. At. All.

You may think theora's a non-starter but you know what, you're all focused on technical limitations and other bullshit

Not technical limitations. Quality. Theora just doesn't have it.

when you should worry about "DOES IT FUCKING WORK OR NOT?" That answer is yes, and since it does work, it's viable enough.

But it doesn't "fucking work". Well over 99% of computers in use today cannot play Theora over the web. If you ditch H.264 in favor of Theora, congratulations, you just ensured that the overwhelming majority of users can not use your site. That would have to be the single most idiotic business move imaginable. While you're at it, you might as well only offer your content in Klingon.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Big Boss]

Not the mentioned hardware accelerated on EVERYTHING. My cell phone has hardware acceleration for h264. OGG? no. VP8? no. Can the CPU do it? no. Well, h264 it is then. It's fine to say we should push for open codecs, but when I can't play the videos encoded with them on my equipment...... Google and VP8 are probably our best chance here, if Google can push for hardware supported VP8 in Android equipment, they might be able to stem the tide. If they care. They already have h264 licenses.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[c0d3g33k]

You're forgetting ACTA which is the attempt to transform 'misinformed garbage' into reality without anyone realizing it until it is too late. Do not underestimate those who wish to control you. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "la la la la" will not be enough to ward them off. Take this seriously and make sure this does not spread to where you live. The first step is not to smugly point out that it doesn't apply to you where you live, but to help those trying to fight it before it spreads to you.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[rawler]

Since when had technological advantages had anything to do with business decisions?

Both Apple and Microsoft, two of the more influential forces in the decision, are stakeholders in MPEG LA. Add the fact that they both probably feels slightly anxious over the seemingly immortal Open Source guys, that just refuses to keel over, but invades market after market. Considered they had the chance to throw a monkey-wrench right into their common enemy, Open Source Software, and I think the decision was made completely without regard to technology.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[SickLittleMonkey]

It'd be easier to fight h264 if anything nearly as good wasn't likely covered by patents.
Flash, Google, VP8, and the future of internet video

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well over 99% of computers in use today cannot play Theora over the web.

Um, what? I thought Firefox's market share was way above 1%.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[bad_sheep]

Don't forget to add Opera, Chrome... I don't even talk about applets such as Cortado or plugins (VLC...) !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora#Native_browser_playback

Actually, on the desktop side, I would say h264 is less present than theora. Obvisously, this is not the case in the embedded world.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[h4rr4r]

Odds are your phone uses DSPs that could decode VP8, just need a software upgrade.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[zr-rifle]

If it's so damn good, why fight it?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind...

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[node 3]

Good point. Somehow I completely forgot about Firefox. Still, the vast majority of computers can't play Theora via the web.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[westlake]

Both Apple and Microsoft, two of the more influential forces in the decision, are stakeholders in MPEG LA. Add the fact that they both probably feels slightly anxious over the seemingly immortal Open Source guys, that just refuses to keel over, but invades market after market.

The major stake holders in H.264 are global industrial giants:

Fujitsu, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, NTT, Panasonic, Philips, Siemens, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba.... AVC/H.264 Licensors

The 817 H.264 H.264 licensees include damn near every other recognizable brand name in consumer and industrial tech on the planet.

China and Japan and Korea are particularly well-represented. In OEM hardware. In broadcasting. In home video.

The Open Source guy isn't immortal here.

He's roadkill. Street pizza.

Little Dolly Dumpling tied to the railroad tracks.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[lennier]

The writing's on the wall here, kids. H.264 is where web video is going.

Theora's a non-starter, and unless VP8 is stunning as fuck and Google indemnifies everyone and his kid brother against lawsuits, it's not going anywhere either.

And yet, using H.264 in a Free manner still remains illegal. This legal and philosophical roadblock won't go away by wishing, no matter how many people think it's cool and trendy.

I'll repeat this for those who are hard of understanding:

If you use H.264 and distribute it freely to others you are breaking the law.

Do you want to be a criminal? Or are you happy to sacrifice your freedom? Then go ahead and let the Web go H.264.

However, if you DON'T want to be a criminal, then you don't have a choice: you cannot distribute H.264. It's not about politics or posturing. It's simply illegal, because, hey, software patents.

The only way this conversation makes any kind of sense is that it seems like a generation has grown up in the last ten years who simply don't understand or respect either the concept of law or freedom.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[lennier]

H.264 is not going away. Those that make money from it can afford the license. For those that don't, it is free.

No, it is not free. It's available without paying money from certain manufacturers, but it's not free. It's jail time if you distribute it.

If it were free we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not technical limitations. Quality. Theora just doesn't have it.

But you cannot really back that up, can you? All the actual comparisons I've seen convinced me that I cannot make out any significant difference between a shitty Theora and a shitty H.264.

You are just talking out of your ass, just like every other H.264 apologist here. You completely skirt the real issue with the codec: it's not free, and you justify it by saying that it's "better quality", an assertion you can hardly prove. Worse yet, you say that "Theora just doesn't have it". Doesn't have what? Theora is only marginally inferior, if at all. If Theora sucks, then so does H.264.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[roca]

Many phones can in fact "hardware accelerate" Theora and other codecs. See for example http://blog.mjg.im/2010/04/16/theora-on-n900.html

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Hurricane78]

I know people who say that about crack and heroine too. ;)

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[shutdown -p now]

Since when had technological advantages had anything to do with business decisions?

Technical advantage definitely isn't everything, but it's not nothing.

After all, PNG eventually displaced GIF in many of its niches, and that was because it was both more open and better.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Tacvek]

Ah, but there is a damn good chance your phone does have the hardware needed for hardwae support of VP8 and Theora. Most mobile devices supporting hardware acceleration are using a general purpose DSP, which should be able to accelerate those other codecs too. All that is lacking is software support for the acceleration.

For example every mobile device using a TI OMAP2 or OMAP3 system-on-a-chip has no h264-specific core but do have either a TMS320C55x DSP or an IVA2 or IVA2+ core. Those later cores can be use to accelerate any form of modern video decompression.

Thus, much of the market is a lot less invested in H.264 than you would think.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[jmcvetta]

The only way this conversation makes any kind of sense is that it seems like a generation has grown up in the last ten years who simply don't understand or respect either the concept of law or freedom.

For better or worse, I don't think lack of respect for freedom is anything new. Else Ben Franklin would not have had occasion to say, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[LingNoi]

My cell phone has hardware acceleration for h264. OGG? no. VP8? no. Can the CPU do it? no. Well, h264 it is then.

Your phone doesn't need to hardware accelerate Theora video, it's a very simple codec compared to h264 which requires dedicated hardware acceleration. Also OGG is just the container format, you can put h264 inside OGG.

For someone marked +2 insightful you seem to know jack shit about anything you're talking about. Yay slashdot.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Draek]

Let me just ask you this: in 3 years, when h.265 is finally released, will you be able to stand up and say "no, don't switch to this, h.264 support is everywhere already and we can't afford to throw all those devices away merely because a technically-superior format came around"?

If you answer "yes", congrats, you'll be going against the hordes of foaming-at-the-mouth nerds currently backing h.264 up. Good luck, you'll need it.

And if you answer "no", well, 'hope you like Flash because that's where the ensuing market fragmentation will lead us back to.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[node 3]

No, it is not free. It's available without paying money from certain manufacturers, but it's not free.

Translation: It's not free, it's only free...

It's jail time if you distribute it.

No it's not. But regardless, I didn't say anything about redistributing it, I talked about non-commercial web transmission. In other words, you can put your family videos up online in H.264 without paying a cent. If, instead, you provide video commercially (e.g. Hulu), then you pay something around a cent.

It's fundamentally insane to be philosophically opposed to paying for products and services that you use in the process of making money.

If it were free we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's free, but somehow we're still having this conversation.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

My cell phone has hardware acceleration for h264. OGG? no. VP8? no. Can the CPU do it? no.

Your misconceptions are maximal. To correct them:

1. Ogg is a container format, not a codec.

2. My cell phone has hardare acceleration for Theora video: http://blog.mjg.im/2010/04/16/theora-on-n900.html. Depending on your model, yours might too.

3. If Theora can be hardware accelerated, so can VP8.

4. Yes, the CPU can do it too. See TheorARM in the previous link and see: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/04/interesting-times-for-video-on-web.html

Open video is where it's going. It's not a question of if, but when. The 19th of May is when Google is expected to release VP8 on a royalty-free basis. Let's see if they do.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[node 3]

But you cannot really back that up, can you?

5 bucks says you immediately follow this with an unbacked up statement of your own.

All the actual comparisons I've seen convinced me that I cannot make out any significant difference between a shitty Theora and a shitty H.264.

Easiest $5 ever.

You are just talking out of your ass, just like every other H.264 apologist here.

It's not apology if it's actually better.

You completely skirt the real issue with the codec: it's not free

I don't give a shit if it's not free if it's better. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with paying for H.264. If you're in the US, the government gives away free cheese. Why do you still pay for food that's better, when you can have free cheese?

and you justify it by saying that it's "better quality", an assertion you can hardly prove.

You base this assertion on...? Oh, I see. You're talking out of your ass. Clever of you to make that claim against me preemptively, as you knew you'd be engaging in just that.

Worse yet, you say that "Theora just doesn't have it". Doesn't have what?

In English, when you have a pronoun, you look for context. For example, it often refers to a noun previously mentioned. In this case, it's actually the word, in fact the entire sentence, directly preceding it. Quality. Theora just doesn't have it.

Theora is only marginally inferior, if at all. If Theora sucks, then so does H.264.

No, Theora is vastly inferior. It's based on an outdated codec, and the only reason it's being used at all is because it was the best "free" codec out there. Maybe VP8 will end up changing things a bit.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[LingNoi]

Many European companies pay royalties to license those patents.

You can also buy copyright from the UK Treasury with no guarantee that you own it. Doesn't mean squat and if companies want to throw their money away, let them.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

ow this with an un

You

Easiest

sound

It's not

like

I don't

you

have free cheese?

got

see. You'r

your

see. You'r

panties

when

all

being used at

bunched

d up changing thin

up.

no problem whatsoever with paying for H.264no problem whatsoever with paying for H.264no problem whatsoever with paying for H.264no problem whatsoever with paying for H.264no problem whatsoever with paying for H.264no problem whatsoever with paying for H.264

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[rawler]

Yup, but I would not call it due to a business decision. Not in the sense; taken singularly and authoritatively by the company board, effectively steering the entire company in one particularly direction, as with the "We shall not implement anything but h264"-decision.

In the case of GIF vs. PNG, it was simply a result of a slow community reasoning where everybody just realized it maid sense.

Had the same pragmatical process been applied for HTML5-Video (and it still _might_ be, even if it seems unlikely), it would probably have reached a state where all commercial browsers fully supported Theora AND h264, while open-source browsers officially supported Theora, and semi-illegal 3d-party plugins implemented h264. Most Content-providers (Youtube, for instance) would probably had gone with h264 for Quality/Bandwidth-reasons, while a few like Wikipedia would opt for the political merits of Theora and use that.

As of now, it will be a disconnect between 64% of the web-users are Wikipedia. It will be interesting to see who budges first. I personally welcome back the good old days with "Site optimized for Browser X"-banners.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[shutdown -p now]

Had the same pragmatical process been applied for HTML5-Video (and it still _might_ be, even if it seems unlikely), it would probably have reached a state where all commercial browsers fully supported Theora AND h264, while open-source browsers officially supported Theora, and semi-illegal 3d-party plugins implemented h264. Most Content-providers (Youtube, for instance) would probably had gone with h264 for Quality/Bandwidth-reasons, while a few like Wikipedia would opt for the political merits of Theora and use that.

I think that's actually the best possible realistic scenario. However, for that, Theora would need to actually be technologically superior to H.264, just like PNG was better than GIF. Which isn't happening - but we'll see about VP8.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[rawler]

Sorry, I don't follow. GIF isn't superior to PNG, but both are supported by every modern browser.

What I find interesting in all of this, is that not only aren't Apple and Microsoft implementing both formats for good measure (it would be a trivial thing to do). They are actually actively preventing 3d-party Theora implementations (and a plethora of other codecs) by not using their own DirectShow/QuickTime frameworks, which seems just weird.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[shutdown -p now]

Sorry, I don't follow. GIF isn't superior to PNG, but both are supported by every modern browser.

Like I said, that's the best we can hope for with respect to some free video codec - to be supported alongside non-free ones. Just as it happend with PNG.

H.264 is like GIF in a sense that it's already mainstream. Theora (or VP8, or Dirac) has yet to get there.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[TangoMargarine]

Majority, yes, but I wouldn't call 69 percent a "vast" majority. 53 percent (if only IE) is barely a majority at all.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[buchner.johannes]

Well over 99% of computers in use today cannot play Theora over the web. If you ditch H.264 in favor of Theora, congratulations, you just ensured that the overwhelming majority of users can not use your site. That would have to be the single most idiotic business move imaginable. While you're at it, you might as well only offer your content in Klingon.

Do you think youtube relies on the fact that your browser can play the codec they are using? No, they implement the decoder in Flash.
Would the end-user care if they switched to Theora Vorbis internally? No.
Since when do we have to have only one codec? Can't websites offer a variety and the browser sends what it supports? We have that already for: Language/Locale, Gzipping Websites, Encoding, ...

Web developers make the ugliest hacks, how ugly can it be to make a if that selects between two or three video codec algorithms?

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

MPEG-LA odes not indemnify licensees at all.

Any extra patents that turn out to cover h.264 are your problem, not MPEG-LA. Its in the license agreement you sign with them when you get that license.

Re:Uh, cause that's where everyone's headed?

[BikeHelmet]

Only the ones with updateable firmware and/or operating systems.

The n900 has a DSP doesn't it? Basically a second CPU, extremely optimized for decoding video. Supporting a new codec is as easy as understanding the DSP's instruction set, and writing a decoder.

Lawyers win-win

[Elektroschock]

It would be more sustainable and cheaper to invest in patent reform than to license trivial patents of course...

Re:Lawyers win-win

[sys.stdout.write]

I'm sorry, why shouldn't we reward people who come up with a novel compression algorithm?

In any event, they only get it for the next 18 years. And in all likelihood, someone will come up with a better algorithm in the mean time.

I've never really understood the anti-intellectual property sentiment on Slashdot..

Re:Lawyers win-win

[ClosedSource]

A lot of people around here talk about "free as in freedom" but what they really care about is the "free as in beer" that usually results. A lot more Slashdotters consume music illegally than they do create and distribute derivative works of FOSS.

Re:Lawyers win-win

[jmcvetta]

consume music illegally

Gosh that's a wonderful statement. So much better than all the 'property' sophism and 'compensation' demands that one usually sees. It captures, with uncommonly bare honesty, everything that's wrong with anti-sharing ideology.

"Sir, it is illegal for you to listen to that song!"

Re:Lawyers win-win

[ClosedSource]

There is no anti-sharing ideology, but there is a anti-paying ideology. Sharing should be voluntary and bidirectional. When you download a song what are you sharing with the artist?

Re:Lawyers win-win

[jmcvetta]

When you download a song what are you sharing with the artist?

I'm not downloading a song; I am downloading a copy of a recording of a song encoded as data. I am not downloading it from the musician; I am downloading it from an assortment of bittorrent peers. With those peers from whom I received little pieces parts of the recording data -- and with others from whom I have received nothing! -- I share little pieces parts of other data.

Re:Lawyers win-win

[ClosedSource]

"I'm not downloading a song; I am downloading a copy of a recording of a song encoded as data."

And this distinction has what significance? So you're "sharing" an artist's work with other people who are "sharing" other artists' work. How about limiting your sharing to things that are actually yours to begin with? If you walk out of your house some day and your car is gone, don't call the police, somebody just might be "sharing" your car.

Re:Lawyers win-win

[jmcvetta]

If you walk out of your house some day and your car is gone, don't call the police, somebody just might be "sharing" your car.

Here's the big diff: If someone takes my car, then I wouldn't have a car anymore. If I make a copy of someone's data, they still have their data. See how those two acts aren't even similar?

Re:Lawyers win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never really understood the pro-intellectual property sentiment in the USA...

Re:Lawyers win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, why shouldn't we reward people who come up with a novel compression algorithm?

Why did the US decide patenting ideas was a good thing?

Re:Lawyers win-win

[ClosedSource]

Yes, I was expecting that response. The problem is that if you make a copy of an artist's work then you deny him the money he would earn if you bought it. You see how it really isn't that different?

Re:Lawyers win-win

[Elektroschock]

Of course the person who copies your car deprieves you from selling it to him. No exclusive property.

Misleading title and summary

[armanox]

Reading the article and linked articles points out that this only applies purchased copies of Ubuntu and not the downloaded version that everyone seems to adore.

Re:Misleading title and summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the article? How dare you! What are you trying to do, start a trend?

Re:Misleading title and summary

[WrongSizeGlass]

Reading the article and linked articles points out ...

But I'm illiterate, you insensitive clod!

Re:Misleading title and summary

[jedidiah]

...and where does one purchase copies of Ubuntu exactly?

They don't sell such a thing. They sell support contracts but they don't sell a boxed version like Redhat used to.

You can get cheap install CD's but that's something else.

Re:Misleading title and summary

[armanox]

I should have been more specific. It seems to apply to PC's purchased with Ubuntu preinstalled on them.

Re:Misleading title and summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the article and linked articles points out that this only applies purchased copies of Ubuntu and not the downloaded version that everyone seems to adore.

Good. I certainly don't want that codec on my computer, much less have anyone pay a cent for it.

The kind of patent abuse the MPEG-LA is conducting calls for disobedience by either not using it or violating their precious, unjust copyright laws.

It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[Concern]

He's willing to compromise on doctrinaire software freedom issues in order to grow his marketshare. I'm impressed he can afford to buy it and give it away even to their OEM vendors. One wonders what terms this was made on, and how sustainable it is. But to be clear - this does not come free with each download of Ubuntu. It's part of a deal where money is getting made through the sale of hardware.

You can look to Android for similar policy, I'm sure.

It might also have the effect of embarrassing some of the folks who had aspirations of hurting Linux adoption by trying to lock the world into a proprietary video codec. It will hurt, but the effect will not be as black and white as it was in the past.

The real endgame here is still getting an open codec in an open standard for web video. I think the commercial interests have finally woken up to how much the proprietary codec world has hurt them, and how much they have to gain by escaping. It's not just a problem for Linux and the FSF - proprietary codecs are a big problem for everyone who produces and consumes video.

In a perfect world, where users could unbundle and pay ala carte for commercial vs. free codecs, they would not buy them (they're not worth much vs. what we can do for free), and producers would not be saddled with encoding for them, and everyone would be quite a lot happier.

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[maccodemonkey]

"I'm impressed he can afford to buy it and give it away even to their OEM vendors."

I dunno. Apple gives away tons of free H.264 licenses with their software (QuickTime, iTunes) on Windows. H.264 licenses aren't that expensive, even though I'm pretty sure they are per machine/download. (The max license fee for the encoder is two cents a disk.)

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[Anonymous Coward]

The real endgame here is still getting an open codec in an open standard for web video. I think the commercial interests have finally woken up to how much the proprietary codec world has hurt them, and how much they have to gain by making their own proprietary codec the "winning" codec next time..

FTFY

Think like them, not like you.

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[DurendalMac]

Yeah, but Apple can easily absorb the cost. They have about $42 billion in the bank right now.

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[Wesley Felter]

I'm impressed he can afford to buy it and give it away even to their OEM vendors.

I doubt they're giving it away; AFAIK OEMs pay for Ubuntu if they want any help from Canonical.

It might also have the effect of embarrassing some of the folks who had aspirations of hurting Linux adoption by trying to lock the world into a proprietary video codec.

Nice persecution complex. MPEG-LA doesn't care about Linux at all, certainly not about hurting it.

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[Concern]

Who said it was MPEG-LA specifically? I think Microsoft and Apple have well established policies in this area. Or were you just born yesterday and haven't heard?

Not that the MPEG-LA has very clean hands either.

The MPEG-LA has insinuated for some time that it is impossible to build any video codec without infringing on at least some of their patents. That is, they assert they have a monopoly on all digital video compression technology, period, and it is illegal to even attempt to compete with them. Of course, they've been careful not to say quite exactly that.

If Jobs's email is genuine, this is a powerful public gaffe ('All video codecs are covered by patents.') He'd be confirming MPEG's assertion in plain language anyone can understand. It would only strengthen the pushback against software patents and add to Apple's increasing PR mess. Macbooks and iPads may be pretty sweet, but creative individuals don't really like to give their business to jackbooted thugs."

-Monty, on a recent story

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[shutdown -p now]

In a perfect world, where users could unbundle and pay ala carte for commercial vs. free codecs, they would not buy them (they're not worth much vs. what we can do for free)

Actually, you can make that choice - to pay or not to pay for H.264 and other non-free codecs on Linux - today.

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[jmcvetta]

give it away even to their OEM vendors.

From TFA: "That doesn't mean, though, that all PCs with Ubuntu pre-installed are covered by Canonical's H.264 license." If I understand correctly, this is a sort of pass-through license arrangement. OEM vendors using Ubuntu who wish to license H.264 through Canonical may do so, presumably at some cost. I see nothing in the article suggesting the license will be given to the OEMs for free.

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[Concern]

Right, but the point is that Mac and Windows users can't choose. They get it bundled. And even those users probably would opt to save the pennies versus paying just to lock out a perfectly good open alternative. And the content producers really suffer - if they had their way they'd be all over a platform neutral, open standard codec where they could take back control over their tools and infrastructure, and that would let them reach their entire audience without having to transcode for different little splinter groups.

Re:It sounds just like Shuttleworth

[Concern]

Ah. That explains it. Wow, this story is truly creating something from nothing, no?

HOW?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since TFS is so suckily misleading, I actually RTFA this time. Everybody's been saying it's legally impossible for Mozilla to license H.264 for Firefox, because MPEG LA requires a limit on the number of installs or something. Of course since Ubuntu is freely distributable, all the same arguments would apply. So WTF?

But it turns out this doesn't mean licensing the codec for the installs we end users make from the ISOs we've downloaded and burned or anything. It's about offering OEMs the option of licensing it for preinstalled copies of Ubuntu.

Re:HOW?

[silverglade00]

But it turns out this doesn't mean licensing the codec for the installs we end users make from the ISOs we've downloaded and burned or anything. It's about offering OEMs the option of licensing it for preinstalled copies of Ubuntu.

Exactly. This is just like my Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu. It came with Fluendo codecs preinstalled. I had to give them up when I decided to use the regular Ubuntu instead of Dell's old version that rarely saw updates.

Re:HOW?

[node 3]

Since TFS is so suckily misleading, I actually RTFA this time. Everybody's been saying it's legally impossible for Mozilla to license H.264 for Firefox, because MPEG LA requires a limit on the number of installs or something. Of course since Ubuntu is freely distributable, all the same arguments would apply. So WTF?

To answer your "WTF?", the problem is that everybody's been lying about Firefox. There are absolutely no legal reasons why they can't license H.264, just as there are no legal reasons Canonical can't. Which is why they were able to do it. WTF averted, problem solved.

Re:HOW?

[rawler]

Last time I read the License, MPEG LA has a few steps in the License, where below a certain number of installs it's free, in between it's increasingly pricey, and there's a ceiling of the total amount of licenses in an organisation, where new licenses don't cost more.

Of course though, you're completely right in your OEM assesment. This does in no way improve the situation for the vast majority of Canonicals users (who doesn't get Ubuntu through OEM), it's simply a move for Canonical to improve it's profitability. (Which in itself is of course not a bad thing)

Re:HOW?

[unix1]

Everybody's been saying it's legally impossible for Mozilla to license H.264 for Firefox, because MPEG LA requires a limit on the number of installs or something.

Wrong.

Mozilla wants their source code and binaries to be openly available, allowing their users to freely use, modify, and redistribute per Mozilla Public License. Including native H.264 (or any patent-encumbered software) support in their browser would not be compatible with their goals of openness and freedom, and would not be compatible with MPL.

Re:HOW?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that Canonical did not license H264 for normal end users nor did it gather a license which enables random downstreams to redistribute / remix its license.

It seems to be limited to vendors which sublicense from Canonical.

Re:HOW?

[node 3]

None of which precludes the opportunity for Mozilla to do the exact same thing with Firefox.

Re:HOW?

[lennier]

Correct, but then you'd have an 'OEM-branded Firefox-derived non-free product' which you, as an ordinary consumer, would NOT be legally allowed to download from mozilla.com and install. Because Mozilla would still not be allowed to grant you the right to distribute and install bits containing H.2.64 yourself.

Re:HOW?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla could but do not want to license a closed source codec and use it in an open source browser. The other part is that it costs money which the Mozilla foundation doesn't want to hand over.

Re:HOW?

[ClosedSource]

Which for most users is a non-problem.

Re:HOW?

[aBaldrich]

There is one country in the world that has the most stupid set of laws on earth. But Mozilla does not care about the rest of the world.
Time to fork.

Re:HOW?

[node 3]

No, you would download it from Mozilla, and it would be branded Firefox, just like it is now.

All Mozilla has to do is license the codec. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:HOW?

[mmj638]

So to further clarify, from TFA:

So the rule of thumb is that an arbitrary Ubuntu system does not have a H.264 licence via Canonical, unless it's an OEM system which specifically lists the H.264 licence in its documentation or marketing materials.

It does not affect the Ubuntu user who has download and installed Ubuntu himself (from an ISO or CD).

It does not affect anyone who already runs Ubuntu.

It doesn't affect all people who buy a computer with Ubuntu pre-installed, but it may start to be available to some.

Re:HOW?

[drinkypoo]

All Mozilla has to do is license the codec. Why is this so hard to understand?

It's hard to understand why so many people think that Mozilla would be able to license the codec at terms which it could afford, and further, that it would be a good idea.

Re:HOW?

[MasterPatricko]

Hello MPEG-LA, Mozilla calling. We'd like a license, for ... ummm... somewhere around 350million users. Plus or minus 50million. Hmph. Maybe we should just buy 6billion licenses. That should cover us.

Special Slashdot Memo: I, Hereby,

[Anonymous Coward]

introduce gNewSense as a fully free alternative to the NONSENSICAL non-free alternatives.

Yours In Novy Urengoy,
K. Trout

Focus

[Enderandrew]

Canonical can focus on keeping the FSF happy, or they can focus on trying to someday turn a profit and brining sustainability to their company.

Why do they need to justify this decision? It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Re:Focus

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat does both. In general it's exactly this sort of thing that has always bothered me about Ubuntu. The contrast between Canonical and Red Hat couldn't be more stark in this case and it's regrettable that Canonical is prepared to compromise on what really should be a core principle of free software distributions.

Re:Focus

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and just in case you thought you could use your mod points to get rid of that:

enderandrew@gmail.com

Hope you still have some left. And some more after that. In the meantime I'll be asking every scammer who contacts my Hotmail account to contact me at my new address, which by no small coincidence is:

enderandrew@gmail.com

Re:Focus

[Anonymous Coward]

enderandrew@gmail.com

Let's see how long it takes some bots to pick that up.

The bots will pick it up, and gmail will do a pretty good job filtering them. This is no longer a very effective method of trolling.

Shuttleworth is a businessman. That explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

He made several hundred thousand pounds selling certificates of dubious value (that's CA certificates in general, not just Thawte's) off the back of an open source project he happened to be involved in (Apache).

If you believe he is in Ubuntu for freedom, peace and democracy you must be a crackpot.

Re:HOW? -- mod parent up

[olden]

Please mod parent up; so far this seems the only informed comment on this thread (sigh).
Link to TFA: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Canonical-clarifies-its-H-264-licence-993182.html

Re:Thank The FSF/GNU Nutcases

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Does that mean we have to give up Hurd?

Closed source? No.

[nielsm]

Huh?

H.264 is not "closed source", it's an open standard with open source encoders (famous x264, everything points to it being the best quality encoder available anywhere) and decoders (libavcodec), it's just that a bazillion companies have patents that cover every corner of video coding. It might be "unfree", but it's certainly not "closed source" or "closed standard" or "proprietary".

Re:Closed source? No.

[rawler]

It's certainly "closed standard", and "proprietary", since parts of it (the patents covering implementation) is property of it's creators.

But yeah, I also reacted to "closed source". I actually thought higher of The Register.

Re:Closed source? No.

[unix1]

it's an open standard with open source encoders

I don't know what definition of "open source" you are using or what you think it means in your mind, but that's not a generally accepted definition.

I'm not going to cite hardline FSF views. Instead have a look at generally considered "pragmatic" OSI:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

So, yes - open source does mean you need to be able to freely redistribute the source, otherwise what's the point?

If you go down that road, you'd be able to convince yourself that MS Windows is "open source" too since MS has given the Windows source code to some governments and biggest customers. They just can't redistribute it or make it public.

Re:Closed source? No.

[forkazoo]

Huh?

H.264 is not "closed source", it's an open standard with open source encoders (famous x264, everything points to it being the best quality encoder available anywhere) and decoders (libavcodec), it's just that a bazillion companies have patents that cover every corner of video coding. It might be "unfree", but it's certainly not "closed source" or "closed standard" or "proprietary".

IP is one of those areas where the loudest voices in the arguments always seem to be incapable of actually saying anything.

Which is a shame, because there is a lot of real reason to be interested in these issues, and very concerned about them. Sadly, it's much easier to ramble on about the way you assume the world works than it is to take a little time and understand what's actually happening.

Re:Closed source? No.

[Nerdfest]

Out of curiosity, when do the patents in question expire?

Re:Closed source? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's certainly "closed standard", and "proprietary", since parts of it (the patents covering implementation) is property of it's creators.

By that standard, most open source projects are proprietary, since the code is owned by the persons that wrote it. The whole point of the GPL is to use copyright, the ownership of the parts that comprise the software, to force openness in people using the software.

Re:Closed source? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patented IS proprietary. No matter how you look at it.

Even if we (with good reason) assume the patent is likely invalid in many places, we should still call it property of the company who filed it until revoked by a court...

Re:Closed source? No.

[drinkypoo]

H.264 is not "closed source",

Irrelevant. It would be a straw man if people didn't keep saying that H.264 was undesirable because it's closed source. It's not; there's no source, it's a standard. It is not, however, an open standard because you must pay to receive the full standards (it costs money just to download a competent summary of the standard, in fact) and it must be licensed to be used, and that is the antithesis of an open standard.

Ogg for Ubuntu One Music Store & this won't ma

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'll accept Canonical's non-free components in a separated section as long as you are clearly notified whenever something non-free is going to be installed, but Canonical makes it a primary initiative NOT to market non-free software/components/services, and the only the only reason they offer "critical" non-free software at all is to increase resources in the free software camp to drive programs in developing alternatives to non-free software that don't currently exist. What Canonical needs to do differently for instance is offer music in Ogg Vorbis format through their Ubuntu One Music Store. I'm wondering why they don't. I suspect it has to do with licensing or contractual issues. Otherwise it probably would have been done already. A few lines of code and the back-end could convert any Mp3 to Ogg Vorbis before the user downloads it even.

this will help

[metasonix]

....all those unsophisticated Ubuntu users who just want their multimedia playback to work, without messing with "multiverse", and sources.list edits, and .deb packages, and dire warnings about violating copyright laws in the US. Everyone installs that stuff anyway, so Canonical might as well pay the fees.

And BTW, can we please be free of Flash now?.....

H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[halfdan the black]

There are countless open source H.264 encoders and decoders available for Linux.

H.264 may be patented in the US (for now), but is most certainly IS OPEN SOURCE!!!

The US and possibly Europe (could be wrong) are the only places where the patent is even valid.

I APLAUD Shuttleworth for making the lives of his users more enjoyable without having to go out and track down codecs. I for one am more than happy to pay the small cost to license these as long as I can watch video without trouble.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[DaMattster]

We can argue symantecs till the end of time but isn't a patented, open-source piece of software an oxymoron? I mean I am not exactly jumping for joy and screaming yay that I can use it because I might have the patent trolls jump all over me.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[kidjan]

We can argue symantecs till the end of time but isn't a patented, open-source piece of software an oxymoron? I mean I am not exactly jumping for joy and screaming yay that I can use it because I might have the patent trolls jump all over me.

No, it's not even remotely an "oxymoron"; open source isn't about giving up your property rights. It's about _respecting_ property rights. This is why open source projects _include a license_, and that license stipulates how people may use the project in detail. How is me requiring people open source projects that use my property any different than me requesting they pay me to use my property? In either scenario, I am putting forth the stipulations for use. If you're against paying to use property, so be it, but don't make the mistake of thinking open source code is devoid of property rights.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[dangitman]

The US and possibly Europe (could be wrong) are the only places where the patent is even valid.

That's nonsense. Heaps of countries have trade agreements where they respect each other's patents. A US patent is basically valid in most of the world where patent law is respected.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[dangitman]

We can argue symantecs

Or, we could argue Nortons and McAffees.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Software patents are not valid in Europe, so the US is the only place in the world these patents are valid, except maybe for some country I don't know about.

A few individual country's payed off politicians are trying to act as they are, but they are not. Not a single software patent has ever been held up in a european court.

You are correct about hardware patents though. Those are valid in many parts of the world.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[moonbender]

The license that accompanies free software is not a usage license (like an EULA), it covers redistribution. In other words, it doesn't say anything about how people can use the software, just on what terms they can give out the software or derived works to other people.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Zironic]

No. US software patents arn't worth the paper they're written on in most of Europe. If the European countries had signed a trade agreement to allow software patents, then they'd have software patents, since they don't, there is no such agreement.

There are however a ton of trade agreements regarding patents, which is why in the vast majority of cases your patent is good everywhere. (Just not software and a few other things)

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[kidjan]

I don't agree. If I tell you that you can use my software, but only under the condition that you distribute the source code, or make code that utilizes my code open source as well, then that is obviously stipulating "what terms they can give out the software or derived works to other people."

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Bing Tsher E]

You're not all talking about the same thing. The GP spoke of Open Source. Now you're talking about Free Software (but you forgot to capitalize.) Free Software (GPL) is a subset of Open Source. There are numerous Open Source licenses that software can be licensed under and still bear the 'Open Source' label.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[dangitman]

And Europe is the entirely of "the rest of the world"? I think other countries are rumored to exist than the European ones. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the EU countries adopt software patents.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Kjella]

But patents do cover use, so everyone even using x264 in a country with software patents without a license are violating the law no matter what the license is. The only difference is that if you bought a MPEG LA license and x264 was BSD licensed you could ship binaries with a patent license, but the GPL prevents that. In other words, even if Canonical licenses H.264 for OEM builds, they have to ship a different binary with a compatible license. This is quite intentionally so that you can't get a "copyright" over copyleft software via patents. Compare that to the BSD license, even if you write 100% of the code yourself and it's patented and live in the wrong country you can't use it, you can't distribute it but the patent holder can do anything they want using your code.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[cdrguru]

I would contend that nearly all software is in fact free. Perhaps not Free and certainly not Open, but if you can get it for zero cost from www.piratebay.com then it is in fact "free".

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[shutdown -p now]

We can argue symantecs till the end of time but isn't a patented, open-source piece of software an oxymoron?

Not as such, no. An Open Source piece of software is Open Source everywhere in the world. Where (and only where) some patents apply to it, they take away some of your freedoms that come out of it being OSS.

One other thing is that, pragmatically speaking, most Open Source software out there probably includes some bits that are covered by some patent out there - it's just that we (and/or the patent holder) don't know about it, yet. The sheer amount of patents in existence, as well as their triviality, make it practically a statistical certainty.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[ClosedSource]

A patent can cover an algorithm or method that can be implemented in software, but it's misleading to say that the software itself is "patented".

Software that violates a patent can't be "free" in the FSF sense because the GPL forbids this, but a patent doesn't introduce any new copyright issues.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Lotunggim Ginsawat]

US software patents are not valid in Europe? Someone needs to tell Germany about that because Microsoft FAT patent has been declared valid in court.

Fact: Software patents are alive and well in European Union.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Zironic]

Little known fact, Europe is infact a continent and not a nation. The fact that one of the roughly 50 nations that happens to be located on that landmass recognizes software patents do not make software patents valid in Europe as a whole.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Zironic]

I'd be extremely surprised considering the vast majority of the EU nations are against.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Lotunggim Ginsawat]

Yeah, right. European Patent Office has 37 participating member states, which includes Germany. 37 out of 50 nations in Europe sure sound like a majority to me.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[dangitman]

I'd be extremely surprised considering the vast majority of the EU nations are against.

What's your source for this assertion? Plenty of software patents have been issued in European countries.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Zironic]

There is only one known case where a software patent has been held up in court in Europe so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[dangitman]

When did I say anything about them being "held up" in court? That's completely irrelevant, as only a small fraction of patents are ever litigated over. That didn't stop European countries issuing thousands of software patents, and it doesn't say anything about their validity in Europe. Many patents (software and otherwise) are overturned in court in the US, that doesn't mean that all US patents are invalid.

You are dodging the question: what is the source for your claim that "the vast majority of the EU nations" are against software patents?

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Zironic]

What makes you think that being valid in Germany means it's valid in the European Patent Office?

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[Lotunggim Ginsawat]

Because all members countries share the same patent application system. If Microsoft apply for a patent via European Patent Office and succeeded, Microsoft will automatically get 37 national patents, without a need to file 37 applications for each country. There is no such thing such as, if Microsoft files a successful software patent application, it will only takes effect in 20 of 37 member states. Therefore, if the patent is valid in Germany (a member state), it is valid in other EPO member countries.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[moonbender]

Like I said, free software (of Free Software, whatever) doesn't tell you how to USE the software. You can get a GPL'd project, you can use it any way you see fit, you can even modify it, all without making available the (modified) source code; as long as you stay within the bounds of normal copyright you can do whatever the hell you want. It's only when you want to have ADDITIONAL rights beyond what the default copyright gives you, like giving your neighbour a copy of the software or your modified copy of the software (a derived work) that you have to accept and comply with the GPL.

Wikipedia put it's like this: "Those who do not agree to the GPL's terms and conditions do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works. However, if they do not redistribute the GPL'd program, they may still use the software within their organization however they like, and products constructed by the use of the program are not covered by this license."

Of course, if you re-define "using" a project to include modification and redistribution, then you need the GPL to be allowed to "use" the project, but that's a rather unorthodox way of defining "use".

The AGPL goes beyond the GPL, which is a license purely for redistribution, because it forces the user of an AGPL work (ie somebody hosting a website) to also make available the AGPL'd work (I think even if it isn't modified). This also makes compatibility between GPL and AGPL kind of awkward.

Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!!

[moonbender]

I'm aware of the semantic discussions going on about free software vs open source. I'm not sure the distinction is relevant, though -- I think OSI approved licenses (such as the Microsoft Public License) also GRANT additional rights IF the recipient redistributes a (derived) work, ie you don't have the be a licensee of the Ms-PL if you just want to use a work licensed under it.

Only in uhhmericuh

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, are people bitching that someone went out and gave them a new capability? Not being able to play h.264 is, in some bizarro freetard world, _better_ than being able to play it??

That article is wrong.

[kidjan]

First of all, H264 is not a "closed-source..codec"--this is complete nonsense. The standard itself is completely published and documented, and there is nothing stopping open source projects from creating H264 encoder and decoders. And have they ever--hands down, the best H264 encoder implementation today is x264, which is licensed under the GPL. The patent issue is totally separate, but let's not conflate "patented" with "open source." The real issue with H264 is who will pay royalties for the patents. For Windows 7 and OSX, MSFT and APPL pay those royalties. In the case of Ubuntu, it makes it easier for commercial entities to distribute Ubuntu if they know royalties and licensing fees are already being handled. So to be honest, this just makes Ubuntu an easier sell to PC manufacturers because they aren't liable for royalty costs or hidden "gotchas"

The pragmatist

[westlake]

H.264 licensors include fifteen of the biggest names in global manufacturing and tech.

Mitsubishi. NTT. Philips. Samsung. Toshiba....

The 817 licensees include hundreds of other names the geek should recognize.

H.264 support is in the cell phones they make.

Web cams. Camcorders. Video game consoles. Mobile Internet devices and PCs of every description. Industrial and security video. Broadcast, cable and satellite technologies.

Theatrical production and home video. The set-top box. The Internet enabled HDTV.

Mozilla's Firefox can ignore H.264 in the browser.

But Mozilla can't keep Amazon.com from stocking 3,500 flavors of the H.264 HD camcorder, priced from $125-$5,000.

It can't get shelf space for the non-existent Theora or VP8 product in WalMart.

There are some things a commercially viable OEM Linux PC must deliver at retail. H.264 support is one of them. It needs to be in hardware. it needs to competitive - and it needs to be there today.
   

Re:The pragmatist

[jmcvetta]

There are some things a commercially viable OEM Linux PC must deliver at retail. H.264 support is one of them. It needs to be in hardware. it needs to competitive - and it needs to be there today.

Holy shit -- I actually agree with westlake. This Sam Imperial White must be some good beer...

Seriously, I don't have a problem with how Canonical is approaching this. They are making this license easily available to OEM hardware vendors, if the vendors wish to purchase it. That's important for vendors who want to sell consumer-ready devices with Ubuntu pre-installed, in countries like the US that lumber beneath the yoke of intellectual monopoly laws.

Intellectual monopoly laws are unjust, and we should all work to have them repealed or struck down. One could plausibly argue that, until they are overturned, conscientious citizens have a moral obligation to violate them. It is however much tougher to argue that a company such as a hardware vendor has a right, much less a duty, to civil disobedience.

Re:The pragmatist

[TheTurtlesMoves]

But Mozilla can't keep Amazon.com from stocking 3,500 flavors of the H.264 HD camcorder, priced from $125-$5,000.

But you can't use them for anything commercial without an extra license from MPEG-LA.

Great news for Ubuntu

[gig]

H.264 is the online successor to the DVD. It's quality and universality is worth paying for. This is great news for Ubuntu.

why?

[chowdahhead]

I don't really see why this is necessary. Canonical already sells the Fluendo codec pack in their store, and packages can be purchased online directly from Fluendo as well. It could have been left to the user to decide to purchase a license or not.

A great step forward

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere along the way in the last few decades, people seem to have forgotten the original idea behind open-source software development. At some point, it no longer was enough that algorithms be published and readily available, or that the code to some cool application was available in case someone wanted to see how it worked, or perhaps improve it even if they weren't working for the company that produced it: everything must also be available free of charge for anyone to use under the surprisingly strict terms of the GPL.

It's not difficult to see why H.264 is in use basically everywhere these days: it's a technically superior format with plenty of corporate backing, an outstanding open-source encoder, widespread hardware support, a sound legal basis, and the codec has been carefully and successfully marketed to content providers, consumer electronics manufacturers and amateurs alike. It has won out over its competitors for a good reason, and despite the licensing fees associated, the specifications are available for anyone to inspect. In short, it's the superior product, and in the end, isn't that what matters?

Now if only Mozilla would follow suit. They claim to be championing the cause of open Web standards, but Flash is basically an automatic download these days.

I have seen the comparisons...

[Requiem18th]

...and found nothing superior about H.264 over Theora.

This "H.264 is superior" is a myth, astroturfing at it best.

I have no doubt the main drive for H.264 is political, specially since they are insisting on codec exclusivity. Codec always used to be pluggable but now Apple and Microsoft have decided that they are only going to allow their codec. How am I not to guess this is yet another underhanded stab at open source?

Re:I have seen the comparisons...

[kidjan]

Are you serious? http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=102 In particular, http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/quality_chart1.png No contest, Theora gets whooped. So do most h264 implementations, compared to x264 for that matter, which is probably why most companies these days are moving towards that encoder implementation.

Re:I have seen the comparisons...

[Heather D]

That link has more cogent info than I've seen anywhere else in this little pissing contest. I'd mod you up If I could right now.

Re:I have seen the comparisons...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a more recent comparison in case you are interested. It looks at a film source. Criticism (see comments) includes the author not testing the Theora 1.2 alpha and using insanely slow x264 settings that more than double encoding time while giving less than 1% quality gain.

Re:Thank The FSF/GNU Nutcases

[bsDaemon]

what, you mean you haven't hurd?

symantecs?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the best misspelling of semantics I've seen yet.

Ffreaking Market Share $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu Linux the new monopoly.

Re:Ogg for Ubuntu One Music Store & this won't

[jaavaaguru]

What Canonical needs to do differently for instance is offer music in Ogg Vorbis format through their Ubuntu One Music Store. I'm wondering why they don't.

I believe I speak for a lot of people when I say it won't play on my iPod, so I won't buy it.

And let's not get into converting between lossy file formats. MP3 at anything less than 256kbps sucks enough without converting it and losing more quality.

Re:Ogg for Ubuntu One Music Store & this won't

[neumayr]

You're giving a company the benefit of the doubt. Interesting.
I don't know about the law wherever Canonical is based, but usually companies are required by law to first and foremost generate revenue.

Anyways, reencoding an MP3 to OGG (converting one lossy format into another lossy format) is a bad idea.

Use H.264, MPEG-LA claims to "own" the results

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems most posters here are unaware of the Slashdot discussion to this effect from a few days ago:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/05/02/1114235/The-MPEG-LAs-Lock-On-Culture

RO

A great day for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

At last now I can roll out many many more linux distros to my customers!!!

H.264 is an open standard for all

[darrenm]

H.264 is an open standard for all... 'Cause Steve Jobs told me so.

sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Apple and Microsoft, two of the more influential forces in the decision, are stakeholders in MPEG LA [mpegla.com].

And it is unlikely that either of them makes any money from MPEG-LA - Microsoft's IE manager says that "Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264". I'd expect that Apple, which owns just one patent in the H.264 pool, is in a similar position.

Add the fact that they both probably feels slightly anxious over the seemingly immortal Open Source guys, that just refuses to keel over, but invades market after market.

A good theory, but not quite so well borne out by facts, at least for Apple. They've managed to do quite well getting iPhone marketshare, despite competition from Android, and look to continue being wildly profitable in that area. And, also, they support a lot of open source projects - they own and maintain CUPS, they're major backers of llvm-clang (which, god willing, will eventually supplant gcc entirely), and you can download the source code for the BSD-derived components of OS X (including the patches they've made, despite not having to do so) as well as their kernel.

Open source and patent-free aren't the same thing. Theora is untested in terms of patent infringement, and the assertions of its developers aren't adequate guarantee that people implementing it won't be hit with lawsuits related to it. That and the fact that has no major corporate backers or IP holders willing to litigate on its behalf, makes it a unnecessary risk for businesses. Note, too, that there is are several open source H.264 implementations, including the excellent, GPL x264 encoding library.

I think the decision was made completely without regard to technology

And this is where you're only partially right. Yes, I believe non-technical factors were important in the apparent success of H.264 over theora, but that's not the only reason - there's extensive existing support on mobile devices for H.264 decoding, it's frankly much better quality at lower bitrates than theora, and the default container format isn't the horrible shitty mess that is OGG.

Re:sigh

[rawler]

Interesting with a slashdotter that is both motivating and well-reasoning.

They've managed to do quite well getting iPhone marketshare, despite competition from Android

Not quite right according to what I read. First of all, iPhone got it's momentum before Android was even conceived, let alone on the market. Now that Android has been introduced and marketed, it looks like it's actually gaining market share, and partially on cost of iPhone (although mostly on others).

Not that it has anything to do with the h264-decision. All Android-phones will probably come with h264 anyways.

And, also, they support a lot of open source projects - they own and maintain CUPS, they're major backers of llvm-clang (which, god willing, will eventually supplant gcc entirely), and you can download the source code for the BSD-derived components of OS X (including the patches they've made, despite not having to do so) as well as their kernel.

Yes, but I see one important guiding line through all Apples Open-Source work. Only where the chances of contributions to them is larger than the risk of competitions. I.E. they keep the Open Source components to the low-level work, and carefully avoid anything visible to a user.

When it comes to things like Linux on the Desktop, their stance seems to be it's a competitor like anyone else, and what profit-driven company wouldn't throw a wrench into competitors machinery?

it's frankly much better quality at lower bitrates than theora, and the default container format isn't the horrible shitty mess that is OGG.

And that explains the motives for say, YouTube to choose h264 over Theora, but not for Microsoft and Apple to block 3d-party implementations of Theora for HTML5, through DirectShow/QuickTime filters.

Non free codec?

[currently_awake]

What does "not free" codec mean? As USA patent law expressly forbids patenting math algorithms, shouldn't you just need to write your own code to implement the codec?

What about creating?

[supersloshy]

I keep hearing over and over how this is such a "great thing" and so "smart" and that if they didn't license the codec, Canonical would get "left behind" and all that crap. People, this is NOT good.

Lets look at the reasons this might be good:

1. H.264 is one of the best video codecs ever.
2. H.264 is supported by virtually every computer or computer-related device on the market now.
3. H.264 is being used for online video on many different web sites.
4. Canonical supporting H.264 is making it easier for people to watch video in this format.

If those were the only facts that mattered, I would be all for this. As a question of functionality, it only makes sense to support the codec. However, the reasons this is a bad thing in the long run are as follows:

1. This license is only for playing video encoded into the format.
2. If you want to use a video editor to edit or create video in this format, you need a license, and you can't use Free programs to do so.
3. If you want to sell your created video in H.264 format, you also need a license to do so.
4. In the USA, it is illegal to use Free implementations of the codec to study or share.

Imagine a world where H.264 or a similar codec is being used for virtually everything. You'd need permission to do anything with the codec! The MPEG-LA, with H.264, has a hold on our culture and how dare they restrict whether or not we create, edit, remix, and share! This isn't an argument about functionality, this is an argument about freedom. This is an argument about the freedoms of being able to create, remix, adapt, sell, share, and study, which H.264 does not allow us to do. Canonical supporting H.264 and software patents will only push us closer to a future where we need to pay someone to express ourselves. The long-term consequences from this are much more important than short-term. Canonical can't say any longer that they do not support software patents because of this move, and it damages the Linux community as a whole.

Too bad the only good competing codec so far is Theora. VP8, the new Google-owned codec, is our only hope of stopping this from happening.

Re:What about creating?

[Compaqt]

Yours is the best post in this entire discussion.

The basic methods of communication need to be unencumbered (libre==free). This is a point that corporations will not understand, but it's surprising how much anti-freedom sentiment there is on Slashdot.

The predominant mode of communication in every era has been free (or, where it hasn't been, people have militated against that).

Quill - free to use, no royalties.
Movable type - you don't have to pay anything to use the letters of the Latin alphabet
Digital text (HTML) - you don't have to pay royalties to Tim Berners-Lee

So why should digital video be different? Pay to view, pay to create. It's not the price, it's the principal.

And if this is going to be a government-mandated standard, the government would be justified in taking the patent under eminent domain, compensating MPEG-LA, and allowing free use of the codec.

You aren't losing your soul

[nurb432]

Yes, yes you are. But is that a bad thing?

Re:HOW? -- mod parent up

[Hurricane78]

Informed comments? On MY Slashdot?? ;)

wtf? As a GPL author this always ticked me off

[Anonymous Coward]

although it's become an established practice now, everyone does it, and there's nothing to be done about it any more. The mixing of GPL and non-GPL software in the same distro is done by an overbroad interpretation of the "aggregation" clause in the GPL. But that wasn't the early intent of the GPL. The idea was that you could buy some GPL software (in the sense of paying money to get some digital media (magtape in those days) with bits on it, the bits themselves were GPL'd) from some vendor, and you could also buy non-GPL stuff from them, and they could ship both items on the same tape. Not make a tight integration like what everyone does now. Whether this could have been prevented legally, I don't know. Whether it's good for the free software movement, I don't know. (Free software movement in my opinion is an effort to get people to run 100% free software on their computers, just like the vegetarian movement tries to get them to 100% stop eating meat). It's not for everyone, but if you decide it's for you, 90% free is slightly better than 80%, while 100% is orders of magnitude better than 90%. And some of us GPL zealouts were seeking to be 100 percenters.

Entirely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, on the desktop side, I would say h264 is less present than theora.

Uh, what? Apart from the fact that all major desktop operating systems license and provide H.264 playback for their purchasers, the majority of video delivered via Flash is also H.264 encoded, though is provided in a FLV rather than an MP4 container.

No, sorry. H.264 has a dramatically wider deployment, both on the desktop and in the embedded world, than theora.

H.264 in jail

[Skapare]

If the H.264 code binary can be run in user space, non-root, in a chroot jail, then my issues with it are just philosophical and not enough to prevent me from running it. I prefer open source. But I'm not opposed to running binary code. I'm also not opposed to paying for it.

What I am opposed to is borging my computer by running un-inspectable code as a kernel module, root process, or even an unjailed user process. I do not trust corporations to do things right. I'm not going to give permissions to untrusted code. And if I can't read the source, it's untrusted ... by definition.

Re:H.264 in jail

[Tacvek]

There is nothing binary-only about H.264. One of the best encoders for it is x264, which is available under the GPL. There are many decoder implementations, including several under GPL-compatible licenses. Basic decoding (as opposed to say hard-ware accelerated decoding) is generally a much easier task than encoding, although not without its challenges.

I think you are confusing this with the nonsense required by the Blue-ray consortium requiring kernel code to enforce secure communication pathways to the video card, which uses HDMI to ensure you never have access to the raw video frames. That is a completely different issue.

Re:H.264 in jail

[Skapare]

If you want to make a system fully legal, you need the license for H.264. The problem is, they won't license any open source implementations.

Re:H.264 in jail

[Tacvek]

Actually while no license is possible for a GPL'd implementation, since I need to give my recipients all needed rights to redistribute, a license would be possible for say a BSD-Licensed product.

I simply sign the agreement, and start selling the implementation. I can even include the source code. As long as I pay any royalties I owe from selling 100001 or more copies of the codec.

But the user's don't get the right to redistribute without also signing the agreement, and doing the same thing.

However MPEG-LA would eventually change the agreement somehow to prevent having multiple entities selling the same "AVC Product", because that basically circumvents their receiving of royalties.

Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[Petersko]

"And they accomplish this by starting with one of the purest open-source distros around -- Debian -- and then pissing all over it."

And why, exactly, does that bother you? It shouldn't, but apparently it does. Did they send someone over to specifically piss on your copy of Debain?

Or are you just assuming you've been wronged somehow in the process? Because I'll bet your life is not one iota different than it would have been had they not started with Debian. Except, of course, for the fact that you can now complain about them.

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[macshit]

"And they accomplish this by starting with one of the purest open-source distros around -- Debian -- and then pissing all over it."

And why, exactly, does that bother you? It shouldn't, but apparently it does. Did they send someone over to specifically piss on your copy of Debian?

Or are you just assuming you've been wronged somehow in the process? Because I'll bet your life is not one iota different than it would have been had they not started with Debian.

Actually I'll bet it is.

Canonical's use of Debian as a base has had both good (some good press for debian as a side-effect of canonical's aggressive hype machine, and more people that are familiar with debian tools and infrastructure) and bad (many people who might otherwise help with debian help canonical instead, and the flow of fixes etc back to debian is at best spotty) effects on Debian, but it's surely had an effect.

I think what bothers many Debian users though, is simply the issue of "credit" -- though Canonical has done some good (and bad) work itself, through its aggressive self-promotion and targetting of new users, it inevitably ends up getting credit for stuff that's actually due to its Debian base, and I think some people feel that Canonical does not make enough effort to give Debian its due share of that credit.

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[glennpratt]

Fixes:

http://patches.ubuntu.com/

Credit:

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/Debian

I really don't know much about the history here, but this all seems pretty lame. Ubuntu doesn't hide it's Debian roots at all (it doesn't take much poking around to run into a Debian logo, .deb, etc). Also, Debian itself is based on a bunch of other works, it's how the community works.

For me, Ubuntu has been the up-to-date but still useable Debian; if I hadn't gotten used to the Debian world via Ubuntu, I would still use CentOS/RedHat on servers.

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[makomk]

And why, exactly, does that bother you? It shouldn't, but apparently it does. Did they send someone over to specifically piss on your copy of Debain?

If the GP poster uses Python on Debian (for example) then yes they did. The Python maintainer for Debian is a Ubuntu employee, which means that all new Python releases and bugfixes for the Debian packages are horribly, horribly delayed since he doesn't really care about Debian - Ubuntu and the Ubuntu packages are his priority. Unfortunately, removing a maintainer from a Debian package is a huge pain, though the other developers were seriously considering it.

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

The Debian factor of the equation is large, Debian invented aptitude which is the only half good package manager for the silly mess Linux software is, they also provide the repository infrastructure which are the only one that isn't broken most of the time.

On the other hand, Debian fails to provide a finished product.

A default Debian installation is a lot like a default Ubuntu installation in that you get no options, but the end result is crap for Debian.

All they do in the end is to build packages. And the times they have meddled with code, they have broken it.

Ubuntu sure works at a higher level but I would say their contribution is as much as can be done for Linux short of rewriting the whole system(the GNU/part), discarding all old software, and paying for new ports of everything to the new architecture. Unless Microsoft decides to switch to the Bright side, and drop all their cash into the project I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds more like a serious flaw in Debian's workflow processes than anything wrong with Ubuntu.

But it's open source; you can always download and compile from source! Cause it's full of freedom!

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a war about purity. Frankly, presonaly I dont care if somebody does before install what I usualy do after the install.
      But all this can result in a break in the linux community and the system how the things work now. You start a new branch - superlinux. Everything is inside, directX, flash, all the codecs. It happens that you must pay from each selled copy. And you must include DRM to be able to control the number of copies. And you start to need a department of lawyers to handle the clicks on 'I Agree' licences.
      At that moment, the OSS authors can start to ask themselves - why do I work for free and somebody else has the gain? You may have fork to GPL3 and proprietary. This may influence the end user like me.
    Is that logical ?

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

come on, when Ubuntu modifies Debian code, Ubuntu publishes the new source, so Debian coders can freely look at the new source, and see if they like the edits.

Re:Oh. Boo Freaking Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom and Philosophy

Debian and Ubuntu are grounded on the same free software philosophy. Both groups are explicitly committed to building an operating system of free software.

Differences between the groups lie in their treatment of non-computer applications (like documentation, fonts and binary firmware) and non-free software. Debian distributes a small amount of non-free software from their Internet servers. Ubuntu will also distribute binary drivers in the "restricted" component on its Internet servers but will not distribute any other software applications that do not meet its own Ubuntu Licensing Guidelines.

This is a win

[605dave]

It would seem to me that this opens the door for a more viable consumer machine based on the things we around here seem to want to support. By offering Ubuntu with h.264, they are offering a way for hardware producers to give Linux to the masses. One of the first questions an average consumer will ask of a new network device is "can I view web videos?" The answer will be yes on their MID running free and open source software. That's a win folks.

And btw for those ragging on Apple right now, this is one benefit of moving to a HTML5/264 future.

MPEG LA H.264 Licencing Terms

[westlake]

the reasons this is a bad thing in the long run are as follows:

Summary of AVC/H.264 Licensing

1. This license is only for playing video encoded into the format.

The fee is paid by the OS or hardware manufacturer. Maxes out at $5 million a year for Apple or Microsoft. Smaller deployments, 10 to 20 cents a unit. No charge for sales of less than 100,000 units.

2. If you want to use a video editor to edit or create video in this format, you need a license, and you can't use Free programs to do so.

Use any tool you want.
MPEG LA is all about licensing codecs and content on a commercial scale.

3. If you want to sell your created video in H.264 format, you also need a license to do so.

Only for videos 12 minutes and over and only if you are raking in the green.

Gross $100K or so and you will have to pay MPEG LA the lower of 2% of the price paid to you (on first arms length sale of a video) or $0.02 per title.

There is no charge for paid subscription services if you have less than 200,000 subscribers.

4. In the USA, it is illegal to use Free implementations of the codec to study or share.

You are - again - for all practical purposes, invisible to MPEG LA until you begin distributing media content on a commercial scale.

Re:MPEG LA H.264 Licencing Terms

[Skapare]

Alice makes some interesting content well over 12 minutes in length, compresses it in H.264, and sells copies of it to Bill, Cincy, and Dave. Bill sells 88,000 copies for $55 each, giving nothing to Alice. Cindy sells 96,000 copies for $48 each, giving nothing to Alice. Dave sells 93,400 copies for $53.95 each and offers $186,800 to Alice, who refuses to take it. Who is MPEG LA going to go after?

Re:I'm an AUTHOR damn it

[BobPaul]

I highly doubt a H.264 codec is a derivative of anything you wrote. But way to post as AC when making such generic claims.

Re:THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

GIVE ME SOURCE (FREEDOM) OR GIVE ME DEATH!

Gladly. Please report to the nearest Freetard Suicide Booth.

Let me answer, too

[ElusiveJoe]

You want mass market?

No.

Really, why would I want that? My linux distro works fine, why should I care for what another gazillion users want?

And believe me, instead of some H-two-sixty-four a gazillion users would want WoW pre-installed.

Re:Let me answer, too

[AndyS2]

Widespread use of linux should be a good thing for you as a linux user, too. Just think about hardware support and some programs where it isn't too bad if they are proprietary ('mainstream' games, for example). Don't you want new hardware and new games to work on linux, too? What about special software from big vendors that is not available on linux right now? Widespread use of an OS could be the most important factor when a company decides on which platforms they want to release a software for.

Re:Let me answer, too

[DurendalMac]

Yeah, because more software means nothing. Better drivers means nothing. Better hardware support means nothing. Enjoy life in your insulated little bubble.

Re:Let me answer, too

[ElusiveJoe]

Just think about hardware support and some programs where it isn't too bad if they are proprietary ('mainstream' games, for example).

Whenever I want to play mainstream proprietary games, I use Windows. Currently, there is no place in Linux install for proprietary software. Installing a binary package with the root access? Are you kidding me?! Probably in the future, this software would be automatically installed under VM, but the problem is games would still need direct hardware access.

Don't you want new hardware ... to work on linux, too?

New hardware already works on linux. Next question, please.

Widespread use of an OS could be the most important factor when a company decides on which platforms they want to release a software for.

If it's still proprietary, than what's the point in using linux (see above)? No, really? If you just want to think different (r), there is another OS for that. And this kind of companies you're talking about would never agree with free and open software ideas.

Re:Thank The FSF/GNU Nutcases

[victorhooi]

heya,

You realise it's these "kooks" that gave us the OSS legacy we're using now, right?

And now little punks like you are using that legacy, and telling them to bugger off...

I would have thought your parents would have taught you better.

Look, I think Stallman and co are seriously wacky as much as the next person, but it's actually thanks to people like him that the FSF and OSS even got off the ground. So I think we should at least give them credit for that. And it's a real shame when grassroots people like him, or say, all those civil liberties groups, whom us mainstream people love to write off as crazy hippies - we reap all the benefits of all their campaigning and what not, then act like ungrateful brats to them.

It's not to say you can't make fun of them, or say they're a bit loopy, but saying we should "jettison" them? Are you willing to jettison all the work they've done as well, and go back to a Windows and Apple only world? Heck, even Slashdot runs on OSS...willing to give that up?

Cheers, Victor

Closed source? No. Closed Standard? Yes.

[SgtChaireBourne]

You liars are annoying. H.264 is still a closed standard and it does not matter how many Microsoft Partners tell you that closed is open or that open means "buy our stuff". H.264 fails on points 2, 3, and 4 of the formal definition of open standard:

1. The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organization, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
2. The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
3. The relevant copyright and patents for the standard are made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
4. There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard

Canonical is free to re-sell proprietary standards, but let's not pretend that helping establish vendor lock-in was or is a goal of Free and Open Source Software. Oh, wait, Canonical is not re-selling H.264 except for the OEM editions. The rest of you are still on the hook for the bill because it is merely a distributor. I notice that the enGadget article on H.264 patents leaves out the price for the third category obligated to pay under patent law: the user. GIF should have been a lesson about software patents.

Obviously the Microsoft Party and its members have problems with the above definition and seek to disparage it and the process itself. Keeping the second version of the European Interoperability Framework clean, free from M$ damage, takes work.

Get access to hardware h.264 decoders instead

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see the Linux userland make use of the video decoders, the ones that have already paid for an h.264 license, built into the many video cards instead.

untrue

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use H.264 and distribute it freely to others you are breaking the law.

This is just not true. There are GPL'd implementations of H.264 encoders and decoders. You can freely distribute these libraries - it is not breaking the law.

Yep, Only Three Linuxs Out There

[denmarkw00t]

Even though Red Hat and Novell are also available for use on PCs

Yep, there certainly don't exist other Linux distros for PC - luckily however I have a personal computer, and this baby runs AAAALLLL kinds of Linux!

X264?

[gszx1337]

Isn't this what X264 is for?

Re:Closed source? No. Closed Standard? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

H.264 is anything but open, but there's a lot of commercial interest in it. As such there has been a lot of PR to make it look good.

With enough PR, most people will believe anything and parrot key points like "it's open and not proprietary" and "it's undoubtedly the best of the best" and so on.

Kind of frightening how many buy into this. Probably because it makes them appear knowledgeable by repeating fancy words and seemingly good-sounding arguments. After all, those arguments can't be wrong because they've heard them so often, can they?

Re:Closed source? No. Closed Standard? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

H.264 is an open standard according to the ITU-T and W3C definitions. Calling the OP a liar based on you cherry picking a definition is at best disingenuous.

How much of Ubuntu is Ubuntu?

[Kickasso]

I wonder what happens if I swap an Ubuntu kernel for my own kernel, configured and compiled by myself. Do I still have a licensed Ubuntu system? Even if the kernel is from vanilla sources? What if I replace their libc? How about gnu userland, I hear there are alternatives? Do I have to use Canonical's repositories for my updates? Maybe I can switch to rpm or even portage-based package manager, do I still have an Ubuntu? It should be feasible to port Debian/FreeBSD to the Canonical platform, is it OK to use Ubuntu/FreeBSD system? In short, how much of Ubuntu can I leave in the system to be still considered a licensee?

I also wonder whether smart lawyers at MPEG LA have answers to these questions. Or maybe they have no idea of what Linux is about.

Re:HOW? -- mod parent up

[tehcyder]

Please mod parent up; so far this seems the only informed comment on this thread (sigh).

Heresy! Burn the witch!

Paying for F/OSS

[AVryhof]

Being someone who sells software I write for a living, I have no problem paying for software, licenses, or whatever it takes to make my computer work how I want it to. I think the big thing I like about FOSS isn't the price tag, but more of the peace of mind I get from using something that promotes software that is Free as in Speech, that the community has a say in, and can be used without worrying about whether I'm breaking a license or not.

I wish Canonical would license more things like h264 and such, and have a version of Ubuntu that users can choose to buy that has this licensed software included in the repos on the CD/DVD, or maybe an Add-On CD that has licensed proprietary software on it. They are doing so much to promote, and giving so much back to the community that they deserve to have some way to make their distro stand out, and even dare I say turn a little profit...especially if the profit is just a result of a more noble act.

To everyone saying that licensing h264 is a bad thing, I think you are the ones who make certain commercial developers so they don't want to release on Linux. They no that there are so many people in the Linux world opposed to paying for their software.

Isn't FOSS about CHOICE? If you should choose to use only GPL software, that's fine, but don't spit on people who buy some software because it does what they want.

One Day Ubuntu users will wake up...

[kompiluj]

... to discover that they are using Microsoft Linux ;)

Re:I'm an AUTHOR damn it

[Drathus]

You have about as much to say about it as the designer of a muffler would have about what kind of stereo the company wants to put into the car.

Ubuntu is a quisling

[tomhudson]

What ever happened to "Don't feed the patent trolls?"

Ubuntu LIES

Ubuntu core applications are all free and open source. We want you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on.

Is an h264-enabled web browser a core application? An h264-enabled video player? Etc., etc.

So much for their "philosophy"

Our Philosophy

Our work is driven by a philosophy on software freedom that aims to spread and bring the benefits of software to all parts of the world. At the core of the Ubuntu Philosophy are these core philosophical ideals:

1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
2. Every computer user should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
3. Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use software, even if they work under a disability.

Our philosophy is reflected in the software we produce and included in our distribution. As a result, the licensing terms of the software we distribute are measured against our philosophy, using the Ubuntu License Policy.

we are working to ensure that every single piece of software you need is available under a license that gives you those freedoms.

Currently, we make a specific exception for some "drivers" which are only available in binary form, without which many computers will not complete the Ubuntu installation. We place these in a restricted section of your system which makes them easy to remove if you do not need them.

More about components>
Free software

For Ubuntu, the 'free' in 'free software' is used primarily in reference to freedom, and not to price - although we are committed to not charging for Ubuntu. The most important thing about Ubuntu is that it confers rights of software freedom on the people who install and use it. It is these freedoms that enable the Ubuntu community to grow, continue to share its collective experience and expertise to improve Ubuntu and make it suitable for use in new countries and new industries.

Quoting the Free Software Foundation's 'What is Free Software', the freedoms at the core of free software are defined as:

1. The freedom to run the programme, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the programme works and adapt it to your needs.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
4. The freedom to improve the programme and release your improvements to the public, so that everyone benefits.

Open source

Open source is a term coined in 1998 to remove the ambiguity in the English word 'free'. The Open Source Initiative described open source software in the Open Source Definition. Open source continues to enjoy growing success and wide recognition.

Ubuntu is happy to call itself open source.

I'm sure Ubuntu is happy to call itself "open source". I'm going to call it "Quisling".

Oh, and it's STILL fugly. Can't you get someone who isn't chromatically challenged to at least make this pig look a bit less like a sows' ear?

Re:Ubuntu is a quisling

[jim_v2000]

>Is an h264-enabled web browser a core application? An h264-enabled video player? Etc., etc.

You appear not to understand how codecs work.

Re:Ubuntu is a quisling

[tomhudson]

You appear not to understand what a lie is. Or you understand it too well. Take your pick.

Ubuntu took a run at the corporate market, and have admitted that they failed. Now they're taking a similar run at the consumer market, and that will also fail, because they're playing to open source weaknesses, not strengths. People who want "Window-like" already HAVE Windows. People who don't, don't want a Windows-like system. Apple doesn't copy Windows (they do like Microsoft - they copy Xerox ha ha). You're not going to get them to switch when your ideal of "Long-Term Support" (LTS) is only 3 years. That means the average user can only count on 18 months of support before they have to upgrade. Long-term is 6 to 10 years for Windows, 20 years to "forever" in some businesses. 3 years is a joke.

Look who they appointed - Matt Asay, a guy who had no Ubuntu experience

Matt: I'm new to the Ubuntu party,

Appointing a Mac-head to COO was just another "flailing around for something that might work" fail.

Re:Ubuntu is a quisling

[Xorlev]

If I had mod points, I'd mod this as troll. Ubuntu is free and open source. You can pick it apart to your heart's content. So, what's the difference between installing Wolfram Mathematica or any other closed-source software with a Linux port? A codec is just a piece of software, albeit H.264 is one Canonical decided to license for the convenience of their users. I don't really see what the issue is. I've been on Linux for many years, before Ubuntu came around. I'm personally pleased that I can enjoy h.264 content without resorting to what amounts to theft.