Canonical licenses H.264

[kevin01123]

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/canonical-licenses-h264.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+d0od+%28Omg!+Ubuntu!%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

This is disappointing.

[Merk42]

Why? They should get behind OGG which lost the war years ago?

[dragos240]

It's really not that disappointing.

[heartwarmer]

i dont think its weird, its a step toward the right direction, ogg lost the war years ago, google uses H.264.
i also believe mozilla should switch to H.264

[mihai.ile]

Wait a minute, you do know that you can still chose not to use h.264. What Canonical did, was support users that want to use h.264.

The problem here is not they doing it, it's the end user who should choose what to use, and right now Ubuntu turned from "wou can't use h.264 without special license & stuff" to "you may use if you wish without problems".

As I said the only thing that I don't like is that by this, encourages the use of h.264 over web.

[tica vun]

Just one more step in ubuntu's continuing move against Free Software. What's next, basing Ubuntu on Windows 7 instead of GNU/Linux?

[jomiolto]

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/canonical-licenses-h264.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+d0od+%28Omg!+Ubuntu!%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

This is disappointing.

To put it mildly. The link (and the sourced The Register article) is pretty light on the details, though, and I'm waiting on more details, before making my judgement...

[Sealbhach]

Just one more step in ubuntu's continuing move against Free Software. What's next, basing Ubuntu on Windows 7 instead of GNU/Linux?

No, it's just Canonical being realistic.

.

[Grenage]

The details are a little thin on the ground. I can see why Canonical would consider the move, but I also think it's against the Linux way of doing things. While Theora is a bit inferior, I'd still take it over h.264.

Good day for software patents, though.

[DeadSuperHero]

Well, well, well...

I suppose Canonical doesn't care THAT much about an open web.

[mihai.ile]

Well, well, well...

I suppose Canonical doesn't care THAT much about an open web.

I think it's true.
With the music store same thing. They release mp3 files, I don't mind, but what I do mind is that they do not offer alternatives like ogg/flac. MagnaTune does offer mp3/ogg/flac heck even wav! and it's a great music store!

[Sealbhach]

Well, well, well...

I suppose Canonical doesn't care THAT much about an open web.


Right now, Desktop Linux doesn't have any say on whether the web is open or not. In time, through being realistic and pragmatic, maybe one day Ubuntu or some other Linix distro might actually have a large enough market share to actually influence things.

Until then, let's be realistic.

.

[zekopeko]

I think it's true.
With the music store same thing. They release mp3 files, I don't mind, but what I do mind is that they do not offer alternatives like ogg/flac. MagnaTune does offer mp3/ogg/flac heck even wav! and it's a great music store!

Canonical doesn't control 7digital. Plus all the music players on the market support MP3 while only a handful support ogg/flac.

[sydbat]

OH NOES!!11!! The ability to CHOOSE between proprietary and open source!! The universe is ending!!!11!!!!!

[piousp]

oh noes!!11!! The ability to choose between proprietary and open source!! The universe is ending!!!11!!!!!

nooo!!! Its 2012 already!!!11!!!
:p

[Tristam Green]

Just one more step in ubuntu's continuing move against Free Software. What's next, basing Ubuntu on Windows
7 instead of GNU/Linux?

Wrong.


No, it's just Canonical being realistic.

.

This.

Heavens forbid that a Linux distributor like Canonical actually give their users a choice in how they want to view web content...

[Grenage]

I am curious, wasn't there some vague statement from the patent holders that they weren't going to collect fees for h.264 use?

[doas777]

there is a lot going on on this topic lately. el Reg has some good coverage of the various exchanges over the last couple weeks.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/03/free_video_music_on_the_web/

personally I'm hoping VP8 can be proven legally safe (potentially vindicating vorbis\theora as well), so we can kick the MPEGLA to the curb, but the industry is going to fight tooth and nail to maintain their monopoly.

[mihai.ile]

Canonical doesn't control 7digital. Plus all the music players on the market support MP3 while only a handful support ogg/flac.

So you buy music for your mp3 player and then you buy the same thing again if you need better quality on pc/hifi system?

Why do you think ALL people buy music from Internet stores just to place them on iPods lol? Actually I don't even use a mp3 player right now, and I will not buy music 2 times...

I said it should have an ogg/flac option alongside mp3, not ogg/flac exclusively. Yes they do not control 7digital but Steve Jobs did not control whole music industry but he managed to convince the big players to allow selling separated songs in his store. All I say Canonical should work harder to get a great music store...

[doas777]

I am curious, wasn't there some vague statement from the patent holders that they weren't going to collect fees for h.264 use?
the MPEGLA for H.264 is royalty free at least until 2016, but may become pay-for then.

the FSF just posted the MPEGLA agreement for H.264 last week:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/h264-patent-license
(actual agreement linked within as pdf).

[jomiolto]

The licensing seems to be only for OEMs. From http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/05/04/%23ubuntu-meeting.html:


sabdfl: i believe the licenses he's referring are purely in support of OEMs in specific cases

[Grenage]

the MPEGLA for H.264 is royalty free at least until 2016, but may become pay-for then.

the FSF just posted the MPEGLA agreement for H.264 last week:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/h264-patent-license
(actual agreement linked within as pdf).

I see, so basically they 'could' charge a ridiculous fee once a strong user base has been established? That's a rather bleak prospect to be marching towards.

[doas777]

The licensing seems to be only for OEMs. From http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/05/04/%23ubuntu-meeting.html:
yes it allows them to distribute components that consist of or are referred to in the IP that makes up the licensable technology. since this is a patent issue, you are not licensing a particular piece of software (hence coreAVC sells codec binaries that implement the standard), but the ability to develop, distribute, and use any peice of software that implements any of the patented methods/claims.

[Merk42]

I said it should have an ogg/flac option alongside mp3, not ogg/flac exclusively. Yes they do not control 7digital but Steve Jobs did not control whole music industry but he managed to convince the big players to allow selling separated songs in his store. All I say Canonical should work harder to get a great music store...

Get back to us when 7digital and/or Ubuntu One Music store has as much penetration and is as ubiquitous with buying music as iTunes is.

[mihai.ile]

Get back to us when 7digital and/or Ubuntu One Music store has as much penetration and is as ubiquitous with buying music as iTunes is.

Well at that time iTunes music store didn't even exist, that is what I said.

[Merk42]

Well at that time iTunes music store didn't even exist, that is what I said.

I apologize, I for some reason read that as when iTunes went DRM free.

[keiichidono]

I thought no one had posted this but someone already did. :p

[Sealbhach]

In related news:

Steve Jobs allegedly wrote in a letter to Free Software Foundation Europe: "A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other "open source" codecs now."

OsNews Link (http://www.osnews.com/story/23233/Jobs_Patent_Pool_Being_Assembled_To_Go_After_Theor a)

Sounds ominous.

.

[sydbat]

In related news:

Steve Jobs allegedly wrote in a letter to Free Software Foundation Europe: "A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other "open source" codecs now."

OsNews Link (http://www.osnews.com/story/23233/Jobs_Patent_Pool_Being_Assembled_To_Go_After_Theor a)

Sounds ominous.

.I think they might have to deal with this (http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/04052010/3/finance-business-apple-antitrust-probe-weighed.html) first...

[Bachstelze]

And does this mean Ubuntu 10.04 LTS users are covered and can install H.264 to their systems without worrying about patent issues?

Awesome. This blog will never cease to amuse me. Apparently they don't even know what H.264 is.

[screaminj3sus]

No, it's just Canonical being realistic.

.

This.

Face it people, as much as I'd like theora to succeed, its lost this war.

[Ylon]

My guess: probably a company wanted to set an embedd device (a portable mp4 player), rather asking for a wince licence they did contact Canonical (throught Canonical's OEM services (http://www.canonical.com/oemservices)). In accordance with the product of this company they did want to add H264 codec and (I suppose) Canonical get the duty to contact mpegla to "mediate" between the OEM company and MPEGLA (pacefully asking how legally apply the licence in linux devices without need of lawyers).


Mpegla did took the opportunity to say "whowho... even the cretor of Ubuntu contact us.. we're sooo standard" :guitar::lolflag:

[andrewabc]

If an operating system licenses h.264 does that mean all apps are able to interact with h.264 without havign to get their own contract?

So if Canonical licensed h.264, does that mean firefox and whatever video player comes with ubuntu could use it? Without the creators of firefox/video player needing to license it for this specific task?

Maybe OS (linux/windows/mac) will pay the royalties and software won't have to (unless not used in OS that pays royalties)?

In this scenario OS creators without $$$ to purchase license for h.264 won't give their users a very good web experience once h.264 is used for all video content. So instead of little software creators becoming obsolete, it will be small OS creators who don't pay fee for all apps under the OS.