Re: x264 for Debian
Arc Riley <arc@xiph.org> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >
>> > The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over
>> > it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where
>> > those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it "this is free
>> > because it's GPL" hurts truely patent-clear codecs such as
>> > VP3.2/Theora from being recognised as such.
>>
>> VP3/Theora is all but free of patents. On2 has granted unlimited free
>> use of the patents they hold relevant to VP3. There are almost
>> certainly other patents that could be construed to cover VP3 as well.
>> It is a good gesture nonetheless.
>
> I didn't say patent-free, I said patent-clear. On2 has put a
> license on it which allows it to be used for any purpose and
> disclaims any right to restrict it's use or charge royalties. This
> is the patent version of the BSD license.
Sure, On2 has allowed free use of *its* patents relating to VP3. That
doesn't mean that some obscure company will pop up out of nowhere with
a bunch of patents they claim *also* apply to VP3, and that On2 has
been infringing all along. Something like that happened with JPEG not
too long ago.
> The dozens of corporations holding patents over H.264/MPEG-4 have
> not made such a release, and are activly seeking royalties. We
> don't even know yet what those royalties will be since those
> corporations are still fighting amoung each other over how to divy
> up the bounty from the combined patent portfolio. Regardless of the
> result, it is not patent-clear, will not be patent-clear, and will
> suffer worse bashlash as the free MP3 encoders did.
The patent situation is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the H.264 codec is
being adopted by broadcasters throughout the world. For good or bad,
the codec is here to stay for a while.
> The GPL specifically forbids redistribution when the liberties
> granted by the GPL are limited or restricted by patents/etc. To
> distribute this software on any US-based server is, thus, in
> violation of the GPL.
I won't argue about that.
>> That said, VP3/Theora can hardly compare with H.264 in terms of coding
>> efficiency. There really is no viable alternative in some situations.
>> Microsoft's WMV9/VC1 comes close but I'm sure it has every bit as
>> non-free licensing terms.
>
> This argument has nothing to do with the freeness of it, or it's
> compliance to the DFSG, but instead seems to be arguing that it's
> patent status should be ignored because it's superiority over free
> codecs makes it OK to ignore the ethical concerns over it.
I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me
as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264. If you need HD
content encoded at 4Mbps, H.264 is the only codec that is capable.
Likewise, SD content at 500kbps is impossible with other codecs. It
doesn't matter how free something is when it is useless for the
required application.
I'm not saying that Theora is useless per se. It is adequate for some
applications. They are just not the ones where H.264 would normally
be considered.
This is all off-topic for debian-legal, so I won't pursue the argument
further (unless someone says something really silly).
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: