Steve Jobs loves Dark Shikari!

[kosmonaut]

In an interesting turn of events, it appears that no less than Steve Jobs himself has endorsed (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/20/jobs_on_vp8/) Dark Shikari's analysis of WebM/VP8. I can only imagine what that is going to do to Jason's blog traffic. Maybe now's the time to put in some Google ads. :p

Also, yet far less surprising, the Ogg Theora camp disagrees (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-May/047795.html) with the analysis.

Interesting times, to say the least...

[Dark Shikari]

I was shocked as well. I'm not sure whether to be honored or disgusted by an endorsement by the world's greatest troll :p

[Schrade]

Oh blah. I posted in the other thread then saw this one.

[CruNcher]

Jasons somewhat incorrect analysis especially in the field of patent assumptions now has become a tool in a War that officially has started with WebM, hope it doesn't split x264 in the end :(
Jason got now some attention in this and i hope he uses it rather for the right thing also as he's somewhat biased towards H.264, to fast conclusions will be used in PR actions immediately as we see in this example so carefulness is of the highest importance before releasing anything, the thing @ stake here is to important so somehow it's hard to understand what Jason tried to reach with this "analysis" othet then himself directly attacking Googles efforts as someone who earns money from H.264.

I mean it should be clear that MPEG is gonna look @ the source and find what they think might be patent violations of their members it doesn't need a pre analysis @ all especially as it is already released and to late for that, it was Google and On2's job doing that before. We just have to wait and see how MPEG is gonna react and it seems they already started http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles-royalty-free-webm-video-may-not-be-royalty-free-for-long/ and im not so quiet sure if their members did a analysis yet or they just use Jasons point in attacking VP8 i would bet they do and later come up with their own interpretation of things, it will be interesting to see where this is going to as it could be also a very interesting case for software patents itself as to what is patentable and what is prior and not and the defense of ON2 and Google why they think their thinks aren't just modified H.264 equalities.

Google and On2 are surely first going to say something about Jasons so called "Indepth analysis" that is being used as the first argument currently by mostly every major news site good work Dark you can be proud of yourself now, for the moment ;) .

[STaRGaZeR]

I was shocked as well. I'm not sure whether to be honored or disgusted by an endorsement by the world's greatest troll :p

Disgusted or not, I'd be prepared to receive some phone calls :p

Jasons somewhat incorrect analysis especially in the field of patent assumptions now has become a tool in a War that officially has started with WebM, hope it doesn't split x264 in the end :(
Jason got now some attention in this and i hope he uses it rather for the right thing also as he's somewhat biased towards H.264, to fast conclusions will be used in PR actions immediately as we see in this example so carefulness is of the highest importance before releasing anything, the thing @ stake here is to important so somehow it's hard to understand what Jason tried to reach with this "analysis".

For the sake of video quality I sincerely hope VP8 fails miserably, but not before forcing MPEG-LA to make H.264 free for the internet or something like that. However, the WebM project (with H.264 instead of VP8 of course) is VERY interesting.

[NerdWithNoLife]

Disgusted or not, I'd be prepared to receive some phone calls :p
I think it's always a win when more main stream channels come to the real experts for information. Every other day there's some "super duper HD resizer video converter" that's never worth the money. Education is the key, and this is an opportunity to provide it.

[CruNcher]

For the sake of video quality I sincerely hope VP8 fails miserably, but not before forcing MPEG-LA to make H.264 free for the internet or something like that. However, the WebM project (with H.264 instead of VP8 of course) is VERY interesting.
Too short term thought if 2 really should happen the first shouldn't fail though if the first doesn't fail the second might not be needed @ all anymore ;)

[STaRGaZeR]

Too short term thought if 2 really should happen the first shouldn't fail though if the first doesn't fail the second might not be needed @ all anymore ;)

Yes, I'm sure better and already stablished technologies might not be needed at all if stupidity/money/interests win :rolleyes:

Don't be naive, Google has a plan for this. Too bad good image quality isn't present in that plan.

[weasel_]

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/05/20/steve_jobs_says_no_to_googles_vp8_webm_codec.html
Steve Jobs says no to Google's VP8 WebM codec and forward link written by x264 developer Jason Garrett-Glaser

Dark Shikari admit , now u love apple :D

[7ekno]

as he's somewhat biased towards H.264.

Pictures speak 1000 words, have a look at the encodes, particularly the foreground and background ...

So while you, the Google mob and any other press say bias, I, as an observer and believer of quality, say realist based on tangible results ...

If you, the Google mob or any body else screaming "bias" have an encoder for VP8/XviD/VC-1 hidden away that does a far better job than what was used in the analysis, post the examples ;)

Tek

[lych_necross]

I don't mean to thread jack, but x264 is free of patented technologies right? It doesn't use anything covered under MPEG-LA's patents...?.?

[nurbs]

Of course it isn't free of patented technologies, it's an H.264 encoder after all.

[Gser]

What open sourced in x264's case means is that the coders of the codec do not charge for it and welcome others to spread it and code for it. It still has the same patent restrictions that other h.264 codecs have. MPEG-LA has just freed h.264 for un-commercial usage in hope that it will incourage its use.

[MfA]

A bit off topic ... but GPL and patents really don't mix. According to the GPL I am allowed to distribute a GPL'd program "in any medium". An embedded system is a medium ... an embedded system also generally tends to trip patent license fee requirements.

In the case of H.264 to distribute encoders MPEG-LA wants a license fee. So I know that I can't distribute x264 while granting all the freedoms required by the GPL, so I can't distribute it at all in fact. Any distribution of x264 apart from the copyright owners is copyright infringement ... everyone else just relies on their implicit agreement to let them distribute it under a bastard version of the GPL which doesn't actually exist in the letter, a risky strategy if you ever want to bring a copyright infringement suit as far as I can see, it's not GPL in a meaningful sense.

[Dark Shikari]

According to the GPL I am allowed to distribute a GPL'd program "in any medium". An embedded system is a medium ... yet to distribute encoders MPEG-LA wants a license fee. So I know that I can't distribute x264 while granting all the freedoms required by the GPL, so I can't distribute it at all in fact. Any distribution of x264 apart from the copyright owners is copyright infringement ... it's not GPL in a meaningful sense.You are not a lawyer. The Software Freedom Law Center is lawyers. They disagree with you.

However, you may be correct with respect to the GPLv3, which has a much more onerous patent clause than the GPLv2, hence why many companies refuse to use any application licensed under it. Which is why we don't use it.

[MfA]

Citation please?

As far as I can see their basic stand is that as long no one has been sued yet you can just pretend it's all okay ... if a court judgement ever declares distribution of x264 illegal though there would be no reasonable doubt left (although I don't think anyone here has a reasonable doubt that distribution together with hardware without paying your MPEG-LA license fees would get people sued).

[Dark Shikari]

Citation please?Ask Ronald Bultje, ffmpeg's SFLC liaison. Or, for the matter, ask Google; they distribute the open source libavcodec under an MPEG-LA license as part of Google Chrome. Or ask any of the literally hundreds of other companies who distribute libavcodec with their software products. Or ask any of the companies who distribute LAME with their products. Or libmad. Or any other (L)GPL implementation of a patented multimedia format.As far as I can see their basic stand is that as long no one has been sued yet you can just pretend it's all okay ... if a court judgement ever declares distribution of x264 illegal though there would be no reasonable doubt left (although I don't think anyone here has a reasonable doubt that distribution together with hardware would get people sued).There is no conflict between the GPLv2 and patent licenses. "Pretending" has nothing to do with it; this is what the law says, and this is what people with law degrees say. You're not a lawyer, so you really shouldn't be making claims about license incompatibility that have no basis in fact.

[Guest]

Pot...kettle...black.

[MfA]

It has been made clear on the FFMPEG mailing list that as long as you comply with all other parts of the GPLv2 (excluding section 7) they really don't care if you take out a patent license ... so that's pretty safe.

Any way I asked Brett Smith (FSF licensing compliance lab) instead though since he recently blogged on the topic of H.264 (made clear that it was for a forum argument so might not get a reply).

Here's what I asked if anyone else with legal experience wants to jump in and provide an answer :

I saw the recent blog post about H.264 and I wondered what the restrictions in it's patent license meant to section 7 of the GPLv2 where it concerns GPLv2 H.264 implementations. Obviously the "liberty or death" part of GPLv2 failed before, hence the GPLv3, but is it so here?

I should say this question is only asked in relation to a forum argument, but it has come up on mailing lists for both xvid and FFMPEG before and I've never seen a definite answer (apart from the developers saying that as long as all other parts would be complied with they don't really care if you take out a patent license).

The GPLv2 says "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you". Does this mean the patent license needs explicit clauses to that effect or is the lack of explicit clauses contrary to that effect enough?

In the case of say x264 a patent licensee distributing a binary encoder would be saying "well I took out the patent license, but I don't believe my recipients would need to do so to redistribute binaries" ... morally dishonest at the very least, but legally kosher?

PS. please don't strike me if this is too much off topic :( I think it's on the edge, GPLv2 and patent license compatibility impacts a lot of codecs, but it might be better as a new thread on another forum.

[Dark Shikari]

It has been made clear on the FFMPEG mailing list that as long as you comply with all other parts of the GPLv2 (excluding section 7) they really don't care if you take out a patent license ... so that's pretty safe.

Any way I asked Brett Smith (FSF licensing compliance lab) instead though since he recently blogged on the topic of H.264 (made clear that it was for a forum argument so might not get a reply).

Here's what I asked if anyone else with legal experience wants to jump in and provide an answer :



PS. please don't strike me if this is too much off topic :( I think it's on the edge, GPLv2 and patent license compatibility impacts a lot of codecs, but it might be better as a new thread on another forum.There are two major "negative" interpretations of the implicit patent clause in the GPL that I know of:

1. You can't distribute a GPL application that's covered by patents which aren't available under a license at least as free as the GPL -- even if you have no control over said patents.

2. If you distribute a GPL application and you own a patent that applies to the GPL application, you must release it freely as part of distribution.

The FSF are basically the only ones who believe 1); practically nobody else agrees with it, but it does make for great anti-GPL FUD to try to convince people not to use open source software. The fact that the FSF still pushes this view is extremely dangerous and is probably singlehandedly responsible for a large portion of the anti-GPL FUD out there today.

2) is a bit of a gray area, and many companies like Nokia refuse to distribute certain applications under the GPL out of the worry that they might infringe Nokia's own patents, and thus force them to release those patents freely. This led to some speculation that Nokia held Theora-related patents, as Nokia refused to distribute Theora as part of gstreamer, which was LGPL.

2) fits better with the original intention of the clause, which was to prevent someone from releasing GPL code, hiding a patent on it, and then later going back and suing everyone. It wasn't intended to prevent someone from releasing code because a guy on the other side of the world happened to own a patent that covered it.

All of these questions are reasons why a lot of projects are moving away from the GPL.

Just keep in mind that if you argue that patented GPL software is illegal, you're arguing that basically every single GPL program ever made is illegal, due to the absurd scope of many software patents. Practically nobody claims that their program is truly, utterly patent-free. What matters is that it's free of patents that one considers risky -- trying to dodge all patents in the world is probably fruitless.

Note this is all with respect to the GPLv2. I don't deal with v3.

[Guest]

@MfA

No problem to continue this patent discussion here if that's where you want it. Otherwise I'll happily move it to a new thread. Your call.

[MfA]

Just keep in mind that if you argue that patented GPL software is illegal, you're arguing that basically every single GPL program ever made is illegal
For something like x264 and FFMPEG the developers are aware of the situation and allow it any way. Even if section 7 applied you couldn't sue for copyright infringement based on that any more, they could simply invoke laches.

I didn't say distribution was illegal ... I said the license wasn't really GPL. IMO these projects are distributed under an implicit license, which consists of the GPL minus section 7.

[lych_necross]

An implicit license wouldn't hold up in court IMO. It doesn't matter what implicit agreement exists, it would be nullified by the explicit license one must accept to use the software (or technology in question).

Anyways, I'm not surprised Steve Jobs doesn't like WebM. Google is Apple's main competitor in the smartphone market (in the U.S. at least, Nokia is #1 in the rest of the world); thus Apple snubs Google's new video codec.

[slavickas]

Pictures speak 1000 words, have a look at the encodes, particularly the foreground and background ...
...
if DS would had posted quicktime encoded sample I guess Jobs wouldnt posted link to his blog :D

[Dark Shikari]

if DS would had posted quicktime encoded sample I guess Jobs wouldnt posted link to his blog :DSpeaking of which, I need a Quicktime-encoded sample for my encoder comparison so that I can troll Steve Jobs back ;)

[Gser]

Speaking of which, I need a Quicktime-encoded sample for my encoder comparison so that I can troll Steve Jobs back ;)

I would do it but I do not wish to taint my PC with their plague of a product. I have never witnessed a worse piece of software that they call a "video player". The only video I've ever manage to play with it is they're own movs. I mean, you have to pay extra for mpeg2. Not to mention all the other crap you have to install with it. AND on top of the its slow and unstable.

[Atak_Snajpera]

I remember that in free version full screen option was not available :) Morons!

[poisondeathray]

Speaking of which, I need a Quicktime-encoded sample for my encoder comparison so that I can troll Steve Jobs back


IIRC, someone did post a QT sample in that thread, but you're talking about a QT encoded sample without the dreaded "quicktime gamma shift bug" , correct?

I have QT installed on one of my systems (:blush) , and I know a workaround for the gamma shift, I'll upload it later today in that thread

EDIT: here
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1402261#post1402261

[um3k]

I remember that in free version full screen option was not available :) Morons!

It is now, but Quicktime still sucks. I used to think it was bad because it was Apple software on a PC, but then I used it on a Mac and realized it's just as bad there. What baffles me is that there is a widely-used, perhaps even industry standard NLE based completely on MOV files (I'm speaking, of course, about Final Cut Pro). :confused:

[Gser]

It is now, but Quicktime still sucks. I used to think it was bad because it was Apple software on a PC, but then I used it on a Mac and realized it's just as bad there. What baffles me is that there is a widely-used, perhaps even industry standard NLE based completely on MOV files (I'm speaking, of course, about Final Cut Pro). :confused:

And Adobe products too.

[Guest]

Please continue discussion in the WebM thread.