FLOSS Codecs Emerge Victorious In Wikimedia Vote

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Maggs from the Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team has given a final summary of the discussion and vote about whether to support MP4 video or not. Twice as many people voted against adding MP4 to Wikimedia than voted for full support. Now they can get back to their mission of advocating openness. 'Those opposing MP4 adoption believe that in order for what we create to be truly free, the format that it is in also needs to be free, (else everyone viewing it would need to obtain a patent license in some form to be able to view it). ... From that viewpoint, any software infrastructure in Wikimedia projects must adhere to community norms regarding intellectual property, patent status, licensing or encoding methods. Current community requirements are that free/open standards should be used at all times to encode and store video files on the servers that house our data, so that both our content and software can be redistributed without any restrictions. Proprietary video containers or codecs such as MP4 are not allowed on Wikimedia projects because they are patent-encumbered and their software cannot be re-licensed freely (though MP4 content can be freely re-licensed).'"

Comments

How it happened: very encouraging for anti-swpat

[ciaran_o_riordan]

There was an initial surge of pro-mpeg votes by people connected to the WikiMedia Foundation and the technical team which would have been implementing it, then there were many days of mostly anti-mpeg voting when normal Wikipedia contributors heard about this idea.

As someone who has been campaigning for many years against software patents, it was very encouraging to see that the general Wikipedia populous (i.e. after the initial pro-mpeg surge from employees and pre-briefed technicians) was two-thirds against the use of patented formats.

Re:Need clarification

[Zocalo]

Just what it sounds like. You can produce an MP4 and license the video itself (the "content") under a free license like Creative Commons, but the software required to play back that CC licensed video content is patent-encumbered and cannot be freely re-licensed.

Tempest in a tea pot

[msobkow]

The whole issue is about idealism, not practicality. In practice, MP4s are available on pretty much any device.

Unfortunately, that idealism is shooting wikimedia in the foot, because there are platforms that don't have open source codecs installed by default, leaving the "average" user unable to view the videos.

So in their zeal to pursue "openness", they've closed the doors on the people who matter most: the users.

Re:Tempest in a tea pot

[Vanders]

The users are exactly the people they're thinking about. Because in ten years time, it's the users who'll be happy not to deal with some proprietary closed format that isn't supported on their new device, because sadly it's obsolete and no one cares about Intel Indeo, oh sorry, I mean, MPEG-2, oh wait, I mean, h.264. They care because by using an open format they stand a chance of providing support to the latest iBrain 7, without having to destroy the content with yet another lossy conversion.

Of course if your outlook is limited to the short term of less than the next 12 months then I guess the decision looks bad, but then you're not thinking about the long game.

Re:Tempest in a tea pot

[Vanders]

the terribly performing FLOSS codec of the day

I'm not sure which codec you're referring too, so I can't answer you there.

I guess my optimism is based on WebM being an open format, thus allowing anyone to implement it on any future platform. Unlike various proprietary formats, that won't. I mean, does your 'phone support Intel Indeo or RealPlayer G2?

VP9 doesn't even match h.264, let alone h.265

That's really odd, because the benchmarks I've seen show VP8 & h264 to be evenly matched, and no one has produced a finished h.265 or VP9 codec, so I do wonder how you think you've seen those two codecs fairly benchmarked?

Re:Tempest in a tea pot

[symbolset]

I am puzzled why you think that a free, charitably supported, nonprofit, publicly edited encyclopedia wouldn't have idealism as one of its core principles.

Re:Tempest in a tea pot

[symbolset]

VP9 is going to be supported for both encode and decode on the next generation of chipsets and devices from ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba. That's a long list of heavy hitters. Maybe they know something you don't.

Re:Why does Wikimedia hate batteries?

[amiga3D]

Freedom isn't free.

Thin.

[westlake]

For information only, the raw, unadjusted, uncorrected figures were:

Prefer full MP4 support: 145
Prefer partial MP4 support - viewing only: 4
Prefer partial MP4 support - contributions only: 56
Neutral: 7
Prefer no MP4 support: 309

Total 521

Is the function of a resource like the Wikipedia to serve its larger audience or its ideological purists?

If you know anyone who cannot legally play an MP4 video, I would like to meet them. If you can frame an intelligible argument for refusing MP4 video contributions, I would like to hear it.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people have priorities beyond people being able to read their website, too.

I thought a website was a way to communicate with people -- a service provided to them. Turns out I'm wrong. Turns out a website is a way of attempting to browbeat people into using hardware that some shadowy collection of self-appointed watchmen have judged pure enough for their tastes.

Re:Why does Wikimedia hate batteries?

[Immerman]

And?

Wikimedia is concerned (IIRC) with building a library of content that freely accessible and sharable in perpetuity, I'd say that mission trumps catering to current-gen device users. How many hours per day did you say you spent watching wikimedia videos on your phone? The device manufacturers are after all free to implement hardware decoders for open codecs as well, and unlike H.264 they don't even need to pay any royalty fees to do so.

Re:This means

[evilviper]

They are only accepting Vorbis/FLAC audio, Theora video, in ogg containers?

You seem to be a few years behind the times... WebM is perfectly FLOSS, and much improved.

For lossy audio, in addition to Vorbis, there is the much better Opus codec. FLAC is the standard for lossless, as there isn't much room for improvement.

For video, VP8 (and soon, VP9) are vastly superior to Theora.

And WebM uses the MKV container... not the horrific Ogg.

Most web browsers support WebM... Chrome/Chromium and Firefox/IceWeasel have support built-in, though the later is lagging a bit behind on VP9/Opus. And IE users can play WebM videos by just installing the codec pack.

The "Video Without Flash" add-on for Firefox will allow you to watch all videos on the most popular video sites in native/WebM format. Not only does this help those who can't get Flash, but also native WebM playback is vastly less resource intensive and far more responsive.

Re:Why does Wikimedia hate batteries?

[symbolset]

All major ARM chipset manufacturers have committed to including the VP9 hardware codec. My Nexus 5 already has the VP8. Soon even the $40 tablet will have it. The license is free, the hardware design is free, so there should be no problem including this high-value IP.

These new hardware partners include ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba.

What is this horses#!+

[Kazoo the Clown]

Even Archive.org supports MP4, among other formats. YouTube does both Flash and MP4 for the most part, or at least most of the third party downloaders will give it to you in MP4. Clearly the solution is to provide the content in a couple of formats, enough to serve THE USERS. Unless that is, you don't give a shit about users, in which case I don't see why you need a web presence at all...