Happy New Year! Forget all that stuff about the Mayan Calendar. Be Cool!

Latest Reviews & Tutorials

  • How to customize Linux Mint 12 KDE
  • Linux Mint 12 KDE review
  • GhostBSD 2.5 review
  • How to install Takeoff Launcher on Fedora 16 KDE
  • Install Quick Access on Linux Mint 12 KDE or any KDE installation
  • How to install Linux Mint 12 KDE on a btrfs file system
  • Manual disk partitioning guide for Linux Mint 12 KDE
  • How to compile and install Takeoff Launcher on Linux Mint 12 KDE
  • 3 must-have extensions for Fedora 16 and other GNOME 3 installations
  • How to install Razor-qt on Linux Mint 12 KDE
  • How to enable desktop slideshow on Linux Mint 12 KDE
  • KahelOS 111111 review
  • How to install Cinnamon in Ubuntu 11.10
  • How to customize Cinnamon on Fedora 16 and Linux Mint 12
  • How to install Cinnamon on Fedora 16
  • What does Cinnamon bring to the desktop?
  • How to access Microsoft Windows files and folders from Linux
  • How to dual-boot Pear OS Panther 3 and Windows 7
  • How to dual-boot Chakra Linux Edn and Windows 7, part 1
  • Linpus Lite Desktop 1.6 review

Video, Freedom And Mozilla


MozzilaMy LCA talk on Friday was about why open video is critically important to free software, and what Mozilla is doing about (plus a discussion of the relationship between Web standards and free software in general). Little did I know that Youtube and Vimeo would pick the day before my talk to cast a glaring spotlight on the issue!

Youtube and Vimeo have started offering video playback using the HTML5 <video> element. That is good news for free software, since it means you don’t need a closed-source Flash player to play the video [1]. However, they only offer video in H.264 format, and that is not good news for free software. A lot of people have noticed that Firefox doesn’t support H.264, and apparently many people don’t understand why, or know what the problems are with H.264. This is a good time to restate the facts and re-explain why Firefox does not support H.264. I’ll be mostly recapitulating the relevant chunks of my talk. (Hopefully a full recording of my talk will become available from the LCA site next week.)

The basic problem is simple: H.264 is encumbered by patents whose licensing is actively pursued by the MPEG-LA. If you distribute H.264 codecs in a jurisdiction where software patents are enforceable, and you haven’t paid the MPEG-LA for a patent license, you are at risk of being sued.

So why doesn’t Mozilla just license H.264 (like everybody else)? One big reason is that that would violate principles of free software that we strongly believe in. In particular, we believe that downstream recipients of our code should be able to modify and redistribute it without losing any functionality. This is freedom that copyleft licenses such as the GPL and LGPL (which we use for our code) are intended to ensure. It is possible to obtain patent licenses in a way which works around the letter of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2, but honoring the letter while violating the spirit is not a game we are interested in playing. Continue reading.

0saves
To have articles like this delivered automatically to your Feed Reader or Inbox, subscribe via RSS or email. For simple comments, use the commenting system, but for more involved assistance, please use the Question & Answer section.

Posts From The Same Category:




Questions & Answers Hola! Looking for an answer to a question but did not find it? Then surf on over to the Questions & Answers section. It's a brand new addition to our site, and we are waiting just to answer your question(s).

Leave a Reply

Trackbacks

Read previous post:
Why Microsoft Suddenly Wanted to Be More Interoperable
KDE Gears Up to a Free Cloud
Ask YouTube for Ogg support!
Close