Cisco Releases Open Source "Binary Module" For H.264 In WebRTC

SD-Arcadia writes "Mozilla Blog: 'Cisco has announced today that they are going to release a gratis, high quality, open source H.264 implementation — along with gratis binary modules compiled from that source and hosted by Cisco for download. This move enables any open source project to incorporate Cisco's H.264 module without paying MEPG LA license fees. Of course, this is not a not a complete solution. In a perfect world, codecs, like other basic Internet technologies such as TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML, would be fully open and free for anyone to modify, recompile, and redistribute without license agreements or fees. Mozilla is fully committed to working towards that better future. To that end, we are developing Daala, a fully open next generation codec. Daala is still under development, but our goal is to leapfrog H.265 and VP9, building a codec that will be both higher-quality and free of encumbrances.'"

Comments

Good luck with that...

[Thinine]

A modern video codec that exceeds the performance of H.265 and VP9 without violating any of the patents held by contributors to either? And one that gains the support of hardware vendors to build it into systems? Good luck.

Re:Good luck with that...

[CastrTroy]

I often wonder how you can guarantee something doesn't violate any patents. Since there's no requirement for how long a new product can exist before the patent holder "all-of-a-sudden" discovers that the new product is in violation of the an existing patent, and since there are so many patents out there, it would be quite hard for there to be a guarantee that something didn't violate a patent. "Submarine patents" as they are called happen all the time. You don't bring up a case as soon as some product makes it to market. You wait a few years, and after the product is a success, then you go and ask for a bunch of money. I would say that in many, if not the in the vast majority of patent infringement cases, that the people violating the existing patent unintentionally, and without knowledge of the patent existing at all, or even if they were aware of it, they read it, and interpreted it differently and figured they weren't infringing.

Re:Good luck with that...

[jmv]

Legally, there's a reasonable limit on how long you can wait (6 years under some theories). That being said, indeed can can never prove non-infringement, and it's equally valid for free codecs than it is for encumbered codecs. Paying the MPEG LA tax does not shield you from trolls, or even from companies that participated in the standard and aren't part of the patent pool (usually, not all declared IPR holders are represented in a pool).

Re:Good luck with that...

[jmv]

I recommend reading Monty's Daala demos 1, 2, 3 and 4. We're not just building a similar codec, but making radical changes to many fundamental components of a video codec.

Why not just build on VP9?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Isn't VP9 supposed to be unencumbered by patents anyways?

Re:Why not just build on VP9?

[horza]

Why isn't this comment already rated -5 Troll? Pathetic even for a troll, 1 second Google search shows it is BSD licensed.

Phillip.

Misconceptions

[Imagix]

Hmm.. that blog post reads of marketing-speak. It talks about "plan to open-source" and release as a binary module. If it's "open-source", what about the source code? And it talks about "plan to" open-source. Not that they are going to, or already have, but they "plan to" in some nebulous future timeframe, which by then, the plans may have changed. Another statement I find interesting is that the "(IETF) will decide next week" about which codec to use. I'm guessing that he's referring to the IETF 88 meeting happening in Vancouver next week. Too bad nothing actually gets decided at the meeting. Decisions go back to the working group mailing lists for decisions.

Re:Misconceptions

[Tapewolf]

As I understand it from reading the article and the comments, Cisco will subsidize the patent licenses if you use the binary. If you prefer, you can use the source code, but then you will have to deal with the patent licensing yourself.

"Nathan – We will select licensing terms that allow for this code to be used in commercial products as well as open source projects. In order for Cisco to be responsible for the MPEG LA licensing royalties for the module, Cisco must provide the packaging and distribution of this code in a binary module format (think of it like a plug-in, but not using the same APIs as existing plugins), in addition to several other constraints. This gives the community the best of all worlds – a team can choose to use the source code, in which case the team is responsible for paying all applicable license fees, or the team can use the binary module distributed by Cisco, in which case Cisco will cover the MPEG LA licensing fees. Hope that answers the first part of your question – Nadee, Cisco PR "

Monty's comments

[jmv]

Beyond the official announcements, I strongly recommend reading Monty's comments on the issue.

Open source still requires license fees

[dFaust]

As pointed out in the comments on the Cisco blog post by a Cisco PR rep, if you use the source code (as opposed to the binary) you are responsible for any resulting licensing fees. Cisco is only covering the fees for those who use the binary.

Daala development is just like "good math"...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Daala development is covering new grounds (yes, that's correct), and doing so in a public way. Just like the proof for the Fermat theorem was extremely useful because it created a LOT of new, *good* math (that has applications on stuff as seriously important as the entire field of cryptography) and not because it proved the Fermat theorem, Daala is already important even if the end result ends up not being the best codec under the sun. However, if you go by the result in Opus, it WILL be of extremely good quality.

Re:Open Source Binary Module

[undeadbill]

FTA: "Cisco is going to release, under the BSD license, an H.264 stack, and build it into binary modules compiled for all popular or feasibly supportable platforms, which can be loaded into any application (including Firefox)."

From your comment: ..."since it lacks copyleft provisions to actually make the source open."

Looks like the source will be open, since they are releasing the stack under the BSD license. Looks like people will be able to do anything they want with it, including making baby mulchers, angel summoning portals, and *gasp* video player implementations. Oh, HORRORS, people might not submit their code back to Cisco after attributing their source to them (as simply doing so will allow people to find, oh, I don't know, the source that Cisco is offering for free under a BSD license?).

The only issue is with the fact that Cisco is having to provide a shield using the BSD license between MPEG LA and the rest of the world, while paying a hefty licensing fee for the privilege. However, using a BSD license means they cannot have any unreasonable hold over the source once it is out in the open. If anything, Cisco is a good guy in this (god, did I just say that?).

Re:Why free?

[thue]

Because the H.264 video format is only worth money because of the network and incumbency effects, not because it is better. A video format is a natural monopoly. VP8 is just as good as H.264, and free, but that is not enough to displace H.264 because H.264 has a monopoly via the network effect.

If we were talking about a program such as Photoshop, where the barriers to entry is most determined by your ability to make a better photo editor, it would not be the same thing. There is good reason that the other examples in the summary are "TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML", all of which are not terribly hard to replace, but which have powerful positions because of the network and incumbency effects.

Oh, goody, I can "consume" silent movies now...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

If this license and "modules" covers encoding as well as decoding, AND The Motion Picture Experts Group Licensing Association doesn't decide to rescind their moratorium on charging license fees for the amazing innovative "actually sending the video over the internet" parts of the patent pool, at least this will allow some basic participation in online using the lower-quality "baseline" profile (only, as far as I know) without paying a poll tax to use their Intellectual Precious.

However, I would also assume this doesn't include AAC or MP3 patents either, so unless "consumers" start using Opus (preferable - Opus is awesome) for their audio codec [and it's packageable with h.264 video in some legally-usable manner], you'll still be limited to providing "silent movies".

If the MPEG License Ass. was serious about killing VP[0-9]+, they'd explicitly waive license fees for any implementation of the h.264 encoding and decoding algorithms that are implemented in "software" intended to be executed on a general-purpose CPU (i.e. no dedicated "hardware decoding/encoding") and which is released under an OSI-approved license (if they really wanted to troll, they could mandate that it be a share-alike license like the GPL, just to make a subset of people throw a tantrum). This wouldn't cost them anything (people with money who are "selling" software and/or making dedicated hardware for encoding and decoding h.264 would still be paying them anyway), but there'd still be a legally-free path for everyone else to participate using h.264 (i.e. Mozilla et al could implement software encoders and decoders to distribute). This would eliminate the need for any of the current-generation "alternative"/free codecs entirely, leaving them only daala to have to compete with later, and completely undermining what little momentum Google has bothered to get going on the VP* codecs.

Given how much sense this would seem to make, though, I wouldn't expect the MPEG License Ass. to even consider it.

Free binaries + free Backdoors!

[Jmc23]

Get 'em while they're hot!