You can argue that it is a step backwards for "openness", or, you can argue that Google is digging their feet in to ensure that their own 'truly open' video format will become the standard. Both POV's have validity.
No, they do not have equal validity.
H.264 is not open in the Open Source definition of the term. It is only "open" in the old-school, commercial-players-only, non-GPL-compatible "RAND open" sense, which excludes implementation in any copyleft license because patent indemnity cannot legally be passed on to users.
These two concepts are not identical and it is a false equivalence to suggest that they are. This is not a debate of opinions; it revolves around well understood matters of copyright and patent law.
If you do not understand the interaction of copyrights, patents, and FLOSS software, please educate yourself.
As a small "grassroots" company I spent a bit of time digging into it and called MPEG-LA, they were actually more reasonable then even my best guess and told us to toss the licensing fees we thought we might pay for H.264 decoding as they aren't required due to our implementation.
That's fine as long as you're only ever writing proprietary software and remaining the sole distributor of it. But you're not legally able to licence your implementation as GPL (or any other Free licence), because then everyone who received a copy of your code would have to make that same phone call to MPEG-LA, and receive exactly the same answer.
The mere fact that MPEG-LA could say no (or "give us money") anywhere down that chain would automatically invalidate writing that code as GPL.
What, just because a company can afford the licensing fees means that it MUST pay the licensing fees, especially in the face of other open source alternatives that doesn't require them?
It's not just about Google. Bright forgets that it's not Google who have to pay the licensing fees, but everyone who distributes a GPLed implementation of H.264.
This means you if you give a Ubuntu CD to your friend. You're now a software distributor, congratulations! You get to pay royalties to MPEG-LA for distributing an encoder. So does your friend. So does everyone he gives that CD to, forever, down an exponential chain.
GPL does not allow that kind of ridiculous exponential burdening of fees onto all future users, nor should it. The fault is with MPEG-LA and their desire to burden everyone on the planet who distributes video software with such ongoing exponential fees. If it were a one-off, forever licence, sure, Google could pay it and we'd all get on with our lives. But it's not, so we can't.
But H.264 wouldn't be a problem if we weren't seriously talking about making it a required standard for the entire global Web, browsers of which are implemented in GPL-licensed software such as Firefox.
You can argue that the MPEG-LA has made the codec royalty free but truth is they can instantly make it illegal to open source any software using h264
Not just "can". Already has made it illegal to distribute in GPL form - because "free for noncommercial use" is still incompatible with the GPL, because GPL makes (and can make) no distinction between "commercial" and "noncommercial" users, while MPEG-LA insists it has the right to separate them into two camps. This dispute cannot be resolved. This is why Ubuntu, for instance, doesn't ship the H.264 codec in their base distro - they'd be breaking US law if they did. It's not that they don't want to. They're not legally allowed to.
It seems to me some OSS types get a little hypocritical in that they talk about OSS being all about openness as in source. They claim that the idea is that you can share improvements and so on. It isn't about money, it is about information.
Well, H.264 is open in that way.
No, it is not. It is strictly illegal to distribute a GPL-sourced implementation of H.264 in a software-patent regime like the USA (not illegal in other jurisdictions such as Europe) because H.264's patent encumbrances are incompatible with the GPL's "no further restrictions" provision.
So no, you can't share improvements to H.264, because sharing requires the ability to pass on one's patent indemnity to downstream developers. The structure of MPEG-LA patent licensing prevents that.
Tl;dr: you're uninformed, it's not about money, it's about legality.
Open means documented and interoperable, it does not mean patent-unencumbered.
I agree that the term "open" in the patent world does not mean non-patent-encumbered, but since 1998 it has in the Open Source world. To argue that "open" in the context of the Web does NOT mean non-patent-encumbered is not strictly correct.
However, yes Libre in the FSF sense would be a better term to use since it is less ambiguous.
Published and usable under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms is a very common definition of an open standard. See most ISO standards. The requirement to be free to implement is a relatively new addition to the definition (within the last 10-15 years).
Correct, but in the last fifteen years the Web and the Open Source movement happened. "Open" in the context of Open Source now also carries the connotations of the information not just being documented but also legal to implement without restrictions.
It is openness in the OSI definition of the term that is important (even in more pragmatic approach than Free Software - OSI "Open" promises less freedoms than FSF "Free", but still is far more open than RAND "Open").
Can we agree to say that H.264 is "RAND Open" but is NOT "OSI Open" or "Open Culture Open", is certainly not Libre, does certainly not comply with Stallman's Four Freedoms (even after 2014 the Zeroth Freedom), is not compatible with Cand because of this is most certainly not a suitable foundation for the implementation of media in a as pervasive a cultural institution as the World Wide Web?
The exception reads "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
There may be discussion as to how effective patent retaliation clauses are, but they're a common feature of many open source licences, such as the Apache licence, and inkeeping with the Free Software philosophy. The intent is to preserve the patent idemnity for all users of the software, not deny it.
So far the consortium that administers the patent pool has been quite reasonable about terms - free for noncommercial use, low costs even for commercial - but there is a fear that if x264 were to become so established it were impossible to do without it then there would be a temptation for them to start milking more money from those patents.
No, it's worse than that already. Any cost for commercial use is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL, and makes distribution of a GPLed implementation of the standard illegal in every country that honours this patent.
So if you want an "open" standard with no GPL reference implementation - or rather, with a perfectly good GPL reference implementation which is illegal - then choose H.264. But if your definition of "openness" requires that it be legal to code the algorithm as Free Software - then there's no way in a million years H.264 could even begin to be called open.
It's a culture clash between the Web and the media industry. It seems like so many Web developers are so used to standards being truly open that you've forgotten what the implications of non-open standards are - that you will be legally prevented from using these tools. No Free Software libraries for you! No distribution in the standard Debian repositories. Or code it, and risk lawsuits.
WebM "might" be infringing some weird submarine patent, one day - maybe. But H.264 definitely is. That puts it right out, if you want to obey the law, live in the USA, and write GPL code.
It's not about what H.264 "might" do in the future, though that looks pretty bad. It's what it's destroying right now: the GPL.
Same goes for other free browsers, they can't be expected to pay when they aren't charging for their products.
It's not just 'can't be expected to pay'. It's legally obligated by copyright law to NOT pay, if the patent licence cannot be passed on to the user in the same manner that the GPL's rights and freedoms are.
This is not about being cheap. It's about respecting the law and empowering the user. H.264 is a nasty piece of work because it creates a divide between those who own a patent licence and those who don't. But in the GPL world you cannot create such a divide, either morally or legally. The whole intent of the Free and Open Software movement is to remove the artificial copyright and patent divides between developers and users.
What disturbs me most about this whole H.264 discussion is that a generation seem to have grown up who simply don't understand how dangerous this patent is, as a technological precedent. I get that you just want to 'create stuff without caring about politics', but do you not realise that the existing politics are set up to prevent you from just creating stuff' Politics is exactly what the GPL is fighting so that you can create. MPEG-LA want to divide you into different classes with different rights based on how much you pay, and keep a long patent string on you - and remove your ability to use GPLed software for media. GPL wants to give everyone the same rights as everyone else, to empower consumers to be creators and users to be developers.
Google as a company might not be 100% non-evil, but in this case, they appear to be backing the GPL, which is the non-evil side of this particular debate.
I believe that empowering users is both the best way to unleash creativity, and just the Right Thing to do for its own moral and ethical sake. But I'm getting the sense that far too many of you out there simply don't care about the legal frameworks that give you the rights you assume you have - that you don't even realise what rights you don't have, and are even cheering on their destruction.
That's just sad. Please wake up and educate yourselves.
MPEG-LA licenses the H.264 standards under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminitory) terms -- they're not playing favorites to give some companies strategic advantage over others.
They are, however, discriminating utterly against Free and Open implementations of the 'standard'. I think this is the bit which industry players ofter forget - companies can licence patents, but Free Software developers simply cannot, because imposing any further restrictions on users it violates the GPL (or any GPL-compatible license which has a similar clause).
So standard, shtmandard, it's illegal to develop for if you work in GPL code - not in fact 'reasonable and non-discriminating' at all. That FLOSS didn't exist when RAND was defined doesn't help - it's now become a huge heavy hammer which makes a whole class of development illegal.
Seriously, this stuff is Open Source IP Law 101 which we've all on this site learned from heart for the last fifteen years - where are all you IP newbies coming from who don't know the ropes? It's sweet to see so many fresh naive young faces who think the system works, but it's not like these questions haven't been asked and answered for decades.
If you build a part to do something with H.264 video, as long as it conforms to spec, it will work with others' products.
You can build a GPL-licenced implementation of H.264, but it will be illegal to distribute in the USA or any other software-patent regime.
Why do people defending H.264 keep overlooking that it makes a whole class of developer into outlaws? Not a very useful feature for a standard - unless you happen to not be or know or use the products of anyone in that developer class. Good luck with that.
the MPEG group have time and time again have brought us the best codecs for digital media
Best but illegal. Illegal is not a starter for a universal standard. Why are we even having this conversation?
When the MPEG-LA patents expire, then and not before will H.264 be in the running for a standard. Till then, there's "open" and there's "illegal", and MPEG-LA have decided to make implementing their algorithm in GPL code illegal. So sad, thank you for playing, next. End of line.
You know, we complained endlessly when Microsoft fragmented the web user experience for years...why are some of us giving MPEG-LA a free pass when, however shiny their beads and blankets are, they are trying to do the same thing?
In order to beat h.264, you have to be significantly better, and h.264 is pretty darn good.
Good but illegal. If the patent encumbrance that causes H.264 to be incompatible with the GPL's "no further restrictions" clause were to go away today, it would be a done deal. If not, then when the patent expires, then H.264 will be back in the running.
But until then, it's simply illegal to distribute GPL-sourced implementations of H.264, so - it's a moot question how 'good' the codec is if you can't write a decoder for it without breaking the law, isn't it?
It would be very strange indeed if, in year 2020, radio is using this codec and television is using this codec and cable is using this codec and DVRs are using this codec and Blurays are using this codec...... but the internet did not. The web would be the odd man out.
Will the H.264 patents have expired in nine years?
If not, then it's a non-starter for the Web. Patented algorithms are illegal to distribute in GPLed implementations like Firefox or Chromium.
Adopt H.264 as a universal standard, and you can kiss the GPL goodbye. If that's your preferred end-game for the Web, you might as well just say so up-front.
That's like taking all the money from your bank account and throwing it on the ground across the globe. People looking for money aren't possibly going to be able to search across 200 million square miles to find all your money, so it's perfectly safe, right?
Your collateralised debt obligation investment scheme intrigues me and I would like to contribute to your hedge fund.
It's a real open standard. Does it require patent licensing? Yes.
And therefore, by doing so, instantly it violates the GPL. Because of the GPL's "no further encumbrances" clause, it becomes illegal to distribute any software which both implements H.264 and derives from GPL code. The "ease" of patent licencing doesn't matter. It is flatly illegal at that point.
It takes a very strange cast of mind to translate "illegal to be distributed as free software" as "open".
Of course, if you don't care about freedom of software or even, pragmatically, about using any GPL code - then sure, "open but nonfree/illegal" is close enough, if you squint a bit and don't look closely and also happen to be in the proprietary software or device manufacturing game - anyone but a hobbyist with a Linux box.
However, some of us want to be both Free and Legal, and H.264 has simply taken itself completely out of the running in that game.
You say "patent licensing" as if it was just signing a legal agreement. Their license requires significant royalties to be paid and which we must all pay.
And more importantly, if a patented piece of software requires payment of any royalties whatsoever, it instantly violates the "no further encumbrances" section of the GPL. If that software derives from or includes any GPL components, poof, it instantly loses the right to be distributed.
So if you want video on a Free Software system at the moment you must choose one of the following four options:
1. Abandon the GPL and any dreams of having a fully free desktop system. Just bow, accept that The Market Has Spoken And Freedom Is Dead.
2. Abandon the USA as a market for a regime which doesn't recognise software patents, and hope international treaties don't impose US-like silliness on the world.
3. Abandon the law. Resign yourself to breaking the law and either living like a fugitive, accepting the penalties or trying to make a test case out of your lawsuit.
4. Abandon the known patent-tainted H.264 for a (hopefully) non-patented alternative like WebM, or one for which the patent imposes non GPL-violating encumbrances.
(or, as a temporary solution, sequester the video-rendering component in third-party "dirty" code, like a Flash plugin, written using no GPL libraries, while you initiate a proper project to replace it).
Except H.264 is the best codec. Google didn't choose WebM because it's better, they chose it because they own it and (purportedly) because it's open. They did not choose it for being a high-quality codec, they chose it for entirely meta and political/ideological reasons.
Yes. The chief of those meta issues being that distributing any Free Software implementation of H.264 in the United States of America is illegal due to software patent law.
I don't know about you, but where I come from, not getting arrested is a pretty good driver of technology choices, and yes, does tend to trump 'quality' issues. A slightly higher-quality video codec, distribution of which breaks the law, is not even a starter. It simply cannot compete with WebM in the GPL-derived software market at all.
It's certainly very sad that the makers of H.264 have deliierately put their product outside the realm of rational economic choice by using the big patent gun to make its distribution in GPL-compliant form flatly illegal, but, well. Destroying a whole class of potential users of their own product was their choice, even if it wasn't a sane one.
Google, however, have only one economically rational law-abiding choice left open to them if they want to distribute a GPL-derived media player, and that's to use anything but H.264.
I admit I find it rather strange that you consider legality to be a mere 'meta' issue. Do you regularly break the law in your daily business life, and expect others to?
Slashdot Mirror
You can argue that it is a step backwards for "openness", or, you can argue that Google is digging their feet in to ensure that their own 'truly open' video format will become the standard. Both POV's have validity.
No, they do not have equal validity.
H.264 is not open in the Open Source definition of the term. It is only "open" in the old-school, commercial-players-only, non-GPL-compatible "RAND open" sense, which excludes implementation in any copyleft license because patent indemnity cannot legally be passed on to users.
These two concepts are not identical and it is a false equivalence to suggest that they are. This is not a debate of opinions; it revolves around well understood matters of copyright and patent law.
If you do not understand the interaction of copyrights, patents, and FLOSS software, please educate yourself.
As a small "grassroots" company I spent a bit of time digging into it and called MPEG-LA, they were actually more reasonable then even my best guess and told us to toss the licensing fees we thought we might pay for H.264 decoding as they aren't required due to our implementation.
That's fine as long as you're only ever writing proprietary software and remaining the sole distributor of it. But you're not legally able to licence your implementation as GPL (or any other Free licence), because then everyone who received a copy of your code would have to make that same phone call to MPEG-LA, and receive exactly the same answer.
The mere fact that MPEG-LA could say no (or "give us money") anywhere down that chain would automatically invalidate writing that code as GPL.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
What, just because a company can afford the licensing fees means that it MUST pay the licensing fees, especially in the face of other open source alternatives that doesn't require them?
It's not just about Google. Bright forgets that it's not Google who have to pay the licensing fees, but everyone who distributes a GPLed implementation of H.264.
This means you if you give a Ubuntu CD to your friend. You're now a software distributor, congratulations! You get to pay royalties to MPEG-LA for distributing an encoder. So does your friend. So does everyone he gives that CD to, forever, down an exponential chain.
GPL does not allow that kind of ridiculous exponential burdening of fees onto all future users, nor should it. The fault is with MPEG-LA and their desire to burden everyone on the planet who distributes video software with such ongoing exponential fees. If it were a one-off, forever licence, sure, Google could pay it and we'd all get on with our lives. But it's not, so we can't.
But H.264 wouldn't be a problem if we weren't seriously talking about making it a required standard for the entire global Web, browsers of which are implemented in GPL-licensed software such as Firefox.
You can argue that the MPEG-LA has made the codec royalty free but truth is they can instantly make it illegal to open source any software using h264
Not just "can". Already has made it illegal to distribute in GPL form - because "free for noncommercial use" is still incompatible with the GPL, because GPL makes (and can make) no distinction between "commercial" and "noncommercial" users, while MPEG-LA insists it has the right to separate them into two camps. This dispute cannot be resolved. This is why Ubuntu, for instance, doesn't ship the H.264 codec in their base distro - they'd be breaking US law if they did. It's not that they don't want to. They're not legally allowed to.
It seems to me some OSS types get a little hypocritical in that they talk about OSS being all about openness as in source. They claim that the idea is that you can share improvements and so on. It isn't about money, it is about information.
Well, H.264 is open in that way.
No, it is not. It is strictly illegal to distribute a GPL-sourced implementation of H.264 in a software-patent regime like the USA (not illegal in other jurisdictions such as Europe) because H.264's patent encumbrances are incompatible with the GPL's "no further restrictions" provision.
So no, you can't share improvements to H.264, because sharing requires the ability to pass on one's patent indemnity to downstream developers. The structure of MPEG-LA patent licensing prevents that.
Tl;dr: you're uninformed, it's not about money, it's about legality.
Open means documented and interoperable, it does not mean patent-unencumbered.
I agree that the term "open" in the patent world does not mean non-patent-encumbered, but since 1998 it has in the Open Source world. To argue that "open" in the context of the Web does NOT mean non-patent-encumbered is not strictly correct.
However, yes Libre in the FSF sense would be a better term to use since it is less ambiguous.
rar. "Is not compatible with Creative Commons or GPL licences and..."
Published and usable under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms is a very common definition of an open standard. See most ISO standards. The requirement to be free to implement is a relatively new addition to the definition (within the last 10-15 years).
Correct, but in the last fifteen years the Web and the Open Source movement happened. "Open" in the context of Open Source now also carries the connotations of the information not just being documented but also legal to implement without restrictions.
It is openness in the OSI definition of the term that is important (even in more pragmatic approach than Free Software - OSI "Open" promises less freedoms than FSF "Free", but still is far more open than RAND "Open").
Can we agree to say that H.264 is "RAND Open" but is NOT "OSI Open" or "Open Culture Open", is certainly not Libre, does certainly not comply with Stallman's Four Freedoms (even after 2014 the Zeroth Freedom), is not compatible with Cand because of this is most certainly not a suitable foundation for the implementation of media in a as pervasive a cultural institution as the World Wide Web?
It seems the new-speak has redefined "open". Remember the good ole days when "open" meant fully documented?
I remember when "open" also meant legal to be implemented without restrictions.
H.264 isn't.
He isnt being informative. He is being dishonest.
No I don't believe he is.
The exception reads "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
There may be discussion as to how effective patent retaliation clauses are, but they're a common feature of many open source licences, such as the Apache licence, and inkeeping with the Free Software philosophy. The intent is to preserve the patent idemnity for all users of the software, not deny it.
So far the consortium that administers the patent pool has been quite reasonable about terms - free for noncommercial use, low costs even for commercial - but there is a fear that if x264 were to become so established it were impossible to do without it then there would be a temptation for them to start milking more money from those patents.
No, it's worse than that already. Any cost for commercial use is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL, and makes distribution of a GPLed implementation of the standard illegal in every country that honours this patent.
So if you want an "open" standard with no GPL reference implementation - or rather, with a perfectly good GPL reference implementation which is illegal - then choose H.264. But if your definition of "openness" requires that it be legal to code the algorithm as Free Software - then there's no way in a million years H.264 could even begin to be called open.
It's a culture clash between the Web and the media industry. It seems like so many Web developers are so used to standards being truly open that you've forgotten what the implications of non-open standards are - that you will be legally prevented from using these tools. No Free Software libraries for you! No distribution in the standard Debian repositories. Or code it, and risk lawsuits.
WebM "might" be infringing some weird submarine patent, one day - maybe. But H.264 definitely is. That puts it right out, if you want to obey the law, live in the USA, and write GPL code.
It's not about what H.264 "might" do in the future, though that looks pretty bad. It's what it's destroying right now: the GPL.
Same goes for other free browsers, they can't be expected to pay when they aren't charging for their products.
It's not just 'can't be expected to pay'. It's legally obligated by copyright law to NOT pay, if the patent licence cannot be passed on to the user in the same manner that the GPL's rights and freedoms are.
This is not about being cheap. It's about respecting the law and empowering the user. H.264 is a nasty piece of work because it creates a divide between those who own a patent licence and those who don't. But in the GPL world you cannot create such a divide, either morally or legally. The whole intent of the Free and Open Software movement is to remove the artificial copyright and patent divides between developers and users.
What disturbs me most about this whole H.264 discussion is that a generation seem to have grown up who simply don't understand how dangerous this patent is, as a technological precedent. I get that you just want to 'create stuff without caring about politics', but do you not realise that the existing politics are set up to prevent you from just creating stuff' Politics is exactly what the GPL is fighting so that you can create. MPEG-LA want to divide you into different classes with different rights based on how much you pay, and keep a long patent string on you - and remove your ability to use GPLed software for media. GPL wants to give everyone the same rights as everyone else, to empower consumers to be creators and users to be developers.
Google as a company might not be 100% non-evil, but in this case, they appear to be backing the GPL, which is the non-evil side of this particular debate.
I believe that empowering users is both the best way to unleash creativity, and just the Right Thing to do for its own moral and ethical sake. But I'm getting the sense that far too many of you out there simply don't care about the legal frameworks that give you the rights you assume you have - that you don't even realise what rights you don't have, and are even cheering on their destruction.
That's just sad. Please wake up and educate yourselves.
MPEG-LA licenses the H.264 standards under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminitory) terms -- they're not playing favorites to give some companies strategic advantage over others.
They are, however, discriminating utterly against Free and Open implementations of the 'standard'. I think this is the bit which industry players ofter forget - companies can licence patents, but Free Software developers simply cannot, because imposing any further restrictions on users it violates the GPL (or any GPL-compatible license which has a similar clause).
So standard, shtmandard, it's illegal to develop for if you work in GPL code - not in fact 'reasonable and non-discriminating' at all. That FLOSS didn't exist when RAND was defined doesn't help - it's now become a huge heavy hammer which makes a whole class of development illegal.
Seriously, this stuff is Open Source IP Law 101 which we've all on this site learned from heart for the last fifteen years - where are all you IP newbies coming from who don't know the ropes? It's sweet to see so many fresh naive young faces who think the system works, but it's not like these questions haven't been asked and answered for decades.
If you build a part to do something with H.264 video, as long as it conforms to spec, it will work with others' products.
You can build a GPL-licenced implementation of H.264, but it will be illegal to distribute in the USA or any other software-patent regime.
Why do people defending H.264 keep overlooking that it makes a whole class of developer into outlaws? Not a very useful feature for a standard - unless you happen to not be or know or use the products of anyone in that developer class. Good luck with that.
celebrities should just shut up and do their job
Isn't by definition a celebrity's job to not shut up?
the MPEG group have time and time again have brought us the best codecs for digital media
Best but illegal. Illegal is not a starter for a universal standard. Why are we even having this conversation?
When the MPEG-LA patents expire, then and not before will H.264 be in the running for a standard. Till then, there's "open" and there's "illegal", and MPEG-LA have decided to make implementing their algorithm in GPL code illegal. So sad, thank you for playing, next. End of line.
You know, we complained endlessly when Microsoft fragmented the web user experience for years...why are some of us giving MPEG-LA a free pass when, however shiny their beads and blankets are, they are trying to do the same thing?
Fixed that for you.
In order to beat h.264, you have to be significantly better, and h.264 is pretty darn good.
Good but illegal. If the patent encumbrance that causes H.264 to be incompatible with the GPL's "no further restrictions" clause were to go away today, it would be a done deal. If not, then when the patent expires, then H.264 will be back in the running.
But until then, it's simply illegal to distribute GPL-sourced implementations of H.264, so - it's a moot question how 'good' the codec is if you can't write a decoder for it without breaking the law, isn't it?
It would be very strange indeed if, in year 2020, radio is using this codec and television is using this codec and cable is using this codec and DVRs are using this codec and Blurays are using this codec...... but the internet did not. The web would be the odd man out.
Will the H.264 patents have expired in nine years?
If not, then it's a non-starter for the Web. Patented algorithms are illegal to distribute in GPLed implementations like Firefox or Chromium.
Adopt H.264 as a universal standard, and you can kiss the GPL goodbye. If that's your preferred end-game for the Web, you might as well just say so up-front.
Damnit, don't tell me that now even plants are bad for the environment?! We just can't win!
Shut up and plant some more Triffids, we need the oil.
That's like taking all the money from your bank account and throwing it on the ground across the globe. People looking for money aren't possibly going to be able to search across 200 million square miles to find all your money, so it's perfectly safe, right?
Your collateralised debt obligation investment scheme intrigues me and I would like to contribute to your hedge fund.
It's a real open standard. Does it require patent licensing? Yes.
And therefore, by doing so, instantly it violates the GPL. Because of the GPL's "no further encumbrances" clause, it becomes illegal to distribute any software which both implements H.264 and derives from GPL code. The "ease" of patent licencing doesn't matter. It is flatly illegal at that point.
It takes a very strange cast of mind to translate "illegal to be distributed as free software" as "open".
Of course, if you don't care about freedom of software or even, pragmatically, about using any GPL code - then sure, "open but nonfree/illegal" is close enough, if you squint a bit and don't look closely and also happen to be in the proprietary software or device manufacturing game - anyone but a hobbyist with a Linux box.
However, some of us want to be both Free and Legal, and H.264 has simply taken itself completely out of the running in that game.
You say "patent licensing" as if it was just signing a legal agreement. Their license requires significant royalties to be paid and which we must all pay.
And more importantly, if a patented piece of software requires payment of any royalties whatsoever, it instantly violates the "no further encumbrances" section of the GPL. If that software derives from or includes any GPL components, poof, it instantly loses the right to be distributed.
So if you want video on a Free Software system at the moment you must choose one of the following four options:
1. Abandon the GPL and any dreams of having a fully free desktop system. Just bow, accept that The Market Has Spoken And Freedom Is Dead.
2. Abandon the USA as a market for a regime which doesn't recognise software patents, and hope international treaties don't impose US-like silliness on the world.
3. Abandon the law. Resign yourself to breaking the law and either living like a fugitive, accepting the penalties or trying to make a test case out of your lawsuit.
4. Abandon the known patent-tainted H.264 for a (hopefully) non-patented alternative like WebM, or one for which the patent imposes non GPL-violating encumbrances.
(or, as a temporary solution, sequester the video-rendering component in third-party "dirty" code, like a Flash plugin, written using no GPL libraries, while you initiate a proper project to replace it).
Except H.264 is the best codec. Google didn't choose WebM because it's better, they chose it because they own it and (purportedly) because it's open. They did not choose it for being a high-quality codec, they chose it for entirely meta and political/ideological reasons.
Yes. The chief of those meta issues being that distributing any Free Software implementation of H.264 in the United States of America is illegal due to software patent law.
I don't know about you, but where I come from, not getting arrested is a pretty good driver of technology choices, and yes, does tend to trump 'quality' issues. A slightly higher-quality video codec, distribution of which breaks the law, is not even a starter. It simply cannot compete with WebM in the GPL-derived software market at all.
It's certainly very sad that the makers of H.264 have deliierately put their product outside the realm of rational economic choice by using the big patent gun to make its distribution in GPL-compliant form flatly illegal, but, well. Destroying a whole class of potential users of their own product was their choice, even if it wasn't a sane one.
Google, however, have only one economically rational law-abiding choice left open to them if they want to distribute a GPL-derived media player, and that's to use anything but H.264.
I admit I find it rather strange that you consider legality to be a mere 'meta' issue. Do you regularly break the law in your daily business life, and expect others to?
H.264 already is a success, a resounding one.
And still an illegal one if you live in the USA and want to distribute an encoder/decoder built using GPL source code.
Any media playing solution which requires getting arrested is not really a 'success'.
The maximum bite for an encoder/decoder is 20 cents a unit
Which is 20 cents more than can legally be charged any encoder/decoder implementation built using GPL source code.