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

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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