Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

by cpearce • 17 years ago

54 82 17 years ago

GHFigs14• 17 years ago

Mozilla has taken on the responsibility of providing a free-software solution for browsing the web

..and in so doing they have intentionally crippled their browser's ability to play one of the most widely used video formats. To some of us, this sounds like a dumb move. Hence "get with the program", that program being the one where you attempt to build the best software for browsing the web.

Sanguinez15• 17 years ago

It just depends how much you value your freedom.

pohl• 17 years ago

I understand the issue, but in practice I worry about the patents that cover H.264 about as much as I do those that cover the PDF spec...which is to say: not at all.

jws• 17 years ago

I value watching non-crappy video enough to pay $0.20 for an H.264 license.

I value the runtime on my battery operated devices enough to pay $0.20 for an efficiently decoded format.

(Maybe that is more than $0.20. Depending on volume the H.264 is $0.00, $0.20, or $0.10, but I think there is a base license also required that I can't find. In any event, adding H.264 to a computer probably costs less than half a can of beer.)

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsS...

And remember, I am still allowed to do anything I want with the code. I just have to give MPEG-LA half a can of beer do it.

GHFigs14• 17 years ago

Except that's bullshit and you're attempting to paint critics of ham-fisted attempts to promote an ideology through user punishment as not valuing freedom, rather than actually explaining why the dumb move should not be called a dumb move.

Let me be clear: I welcome your rebuttal, and I will read it with an open mind. What I will not do, for you, for Mozilla, or any of the multitude in the Free Software movement and elsewhere that use this tactic is sit and wring my hands about how I'm no longer in the freedom-valuer's club or try to claw my way back into proper thought by hemming and hawing and qualifying my opinion until it is meaningless.

mortenjorck• 17 years ago

There's a relatively simple solution to this that another heavy hitter in the FOSS world has been using for years: Prompt for a "restricted package" install when the user first encounters an h.264 video, similar to how Ubuntu deals with non-FOSS drivers, plugins, and codecs.

It's the best of both worlds; you stay free and you get to be compatible.

metajack3• 17 years ago

RedHat did this, and I was very happy about it at the time, being involved with the Xiph.org projects. The users hated it, but I don't see how to educate users about this any other way.

wmf5• 17 years ago

Mozilla doesn't want to give users the ability to choose proprietary codecs. You're getting "freedom" whether you want it or not.

GHFigs14• 17 years ago

Even simpler would be to just expose the native capabilities of the platform. Mac OS X and Windows 7 both support h.264 natively, and to my knowledge Mozilla has actively chosen not to use that support.

blasdel8• 17 years ago

Mozilla links directly with liboggplay and actively avoids abstracting it in any way. It can't handle any non-ogm container formats, and ogm was intentionally designed not to handle any other codecs.

They're just assholes. If software patents are repealed in the US they'll mourn the loss of the mainstay excuse with which they force earnest activist wankery on their users. If patents were the real obstacle they'd distribute the x264 decoder to/from locales where the patents are unenforceable, and/or fall back on system libraries.

Their present actions serve only to strengthen the Copyright, Patent, and Trademark status quo, because without IP assholery they would neither have a soapbox to stand on nor an enemy to fight.

novas0x2a3• 17 years ago

I'm not sure you understand the problem here. They do not have a license to use h264, and even if they did, they could not afford to share it with you. Distributing patent-encumbered GPL code violates the spirit of GPL-2 and the letter of GPL-3. If you don't like it, campaign against software patents.

Chromium's approach to this is slightly better, but it's not all there yet. (Speculating here) Google can afford to distribute Chrome binaries with license protection, but they most likely track the total downloads in order to pay the fees. They cannot easily track the source, which is why Chromium doesn't ship with h.264 either. However, it uses ffmpeg, so if your system ffmpeg has h.264, you'll be able to use that (after this is fixed: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21318)

Ideally, that's the approach Mozilla would take, too. If not, as other posts mentioned, the distros that are willing to distribute non-free will eventually solve the problem.

As they say: Patches Welcome.

GHFigs14• 17 years ago

I'm not sure you understand the problem here.

I do, which is why I am so critical of Mozilla's "solution" to it, which has confused the issue of not being able to ship h.264 support for the reasons you mention with trying to promote a format that (whatever its merits) nobody wants.

Ideally, that's the approach Mozilla would take, too.

Indeed, it would be, but my understanding is that they are unwilling to do so or unable with their current code, due to the dumb (IMHO) decision to pressure people into using Ogg.

blasdel8• 17 years ago

Patches are not welcome. Mozilla is not going to back down on this.

Their implementation is designed to make it extremely difficult to swap in other codecs from a plugin or straightforward patchset. You'd have to fully fork at least Gecko and XULRunner, and extend Firefox. Due to their strong Trademark policies, your fork couldn't use their names or logos (see also: Iceweasel).

zokier5• 17 years ago

> They do not have a license to use h264, and even if they did, they could not afford to share it with you. Distributing patent-encumbered GPL code violates the spirit of GPL-2 and the letter of GPL-3.

Mozilla wouldn't need to distribute h264 decoder. It should allow using 3rd party decoders, either by using system APIs (GStreamer, DirectShow etc) or exposing somekind of plugin interface.

> As they say: Patches Welcome.

Patches haven't been welcome.

zokier5• 17 years ago

I began to wonder how long it will take for someone to begin working on a fork of Firefox which would include support for h264. I have already seen patches for both DirectShow and GStreamer backends, so I'd guess it's not that hard technically.

What we need is a catchy domain name, some marketing and a few devs and the spice shall flow again.

wmf5• 17 years ago

Who's going to pay the licensing fees? If you fork, you probably don't get access to the Google money spigot.

blasdel8• 17 years ago

Apple (QT) and Microsoft (DirectShow) pay the license fees when they distribute their Operating Systems.

Nobody gives a shit about distributing the x264 source code, and only the fosstards even have a hiccup about distributing binaries, especially from hosts outside the US. Ubuntu may not ship with the gstreamer plugin, but it does prompt you to download it the first time it's asked for by an application.

zokier5• 17 years ago

What licensing fees? h264? Well I'm not entirely sure how, but lots of FOSS projects support h264, most prominently x264 and ffmpeg, and software building upon them. Just do it like they do.

... or just use system codecs.

besides I'd guess Google would be happy to have h264-supporting Firefox, and end this farce, so getting some kind of sponsorship from big G wouldn't be that improbable.

DarkShikari5• 17 years ago

VLC is one of the most popular open source programs in the world. Over 100 million copies have been downloaded since the 1.0 release, with an all time download count of nearly 400 million.

They support not only H.264--which has a relatively reasonable, low-cost licensing system--but many formats whose licensing models are absurdly overpriced and unreasonable (e.g. MP3). And furthermore, VLC not only supports open standards like H.264, but also plenty of proprietary formats, like VP6, MSMPEG4, and Real Video.

They don't pay a cent to anyone.

jsz02• 17 years ago

What about x264? I know there is speculation that x264 wouldn't have much chance to withstand a software patent fight but OGG Theora isn't 100% safe either. If Mozilla is already going down that road they should just adopt x264 and see what happens. Challenge the patent holders to outrage the public and cripple the Internet. That's going to do more for software freedom than sticking their head in the sand.

zokier5• 17 years ago

x264 is a h264 encoder implementation. Mozilla couldn't "just adopt" it, mostly because they have little use of an encoder. Its the decoder what they need.

jsz02• 17 years ago

Ah I see. I must be thinking of something else. I know I've definitely played back h264 video using OSS software with no commercial hackery.

icefox• 17 years ago

better than flash

mieses3• 17 years ago

The number of comments trashing the FOSS position towards video codecs is strange given that it's equally popular to trash the proprietary flash player. Maybe this thread is a statistical anomaly or people are just inconsistent.

DarkShikari5• 17 years ago

What "FOSS position"?

The vast majority of people I know in FOSS, both users and developers, could care less about patents. The apparent "FOSS position" comes from a vocal minority, not the majority of FOSS users and developers.

mieses3• 17 years ago

They should care because the H264 patent expires in 2025. If we were looking at a few years then you might be right not to worry. It's odd that MPEG LA supporters are coming out of the woodwork on this issue, seemingly to prevent HTML5 from starting out on the right foot.

blasdel8• 17 years ago

The exact same people are trashing both, and it is in no way inconsistent.

Mozilla's obstinate asshattery around <video> is the biggest present obstacle to getting rid of Flash Video. It's entirely possible that the next IE will ship with full support, and then Mozilla will be the very last obstacle.

GHFigs14• 17 years ago

Or maybe those two stances are in alignment? Consider:

The submission is a reaction to a reaction to YouTube and Vimeo now supporting HTML5 <video>, which enables users of Safari and Chrome to use those sites without Flash. Today, right now.

Firefox users, on the other hand, must continue to use Flash, due to Mozilla's decision to ask the world to revolve around them.

natmaster2• 17 years ago

I still don't understand why Mozilla doesn't just use the codecs already installed in the Operating System. Then you don't have to ship any codecs.

Separation of concerns.

wmf5• 17 years ago

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1070979

elblanco• 17 years ago

So?

heresy2• 17 years ago

Excuse me while I take 5 minutes to not give a shit..

Google Chrome's H.264 support not true "free" software

Related Stories