venomous porridge - tj: texburgher: For whom the bell tolls ...

Feb
3rd

Wed

tj:

texburgher:

For whom the bell tolls
Revolutionary HTML 5 video! Huh. I guess at least it’s a nicer piss-off icon than I get with Flash on my iPhone. Still.
Apparently the problem is that I’m using a boring, outmoded browser (Firefox 3.5.7).
(via faruk)

The problem is that Firefox is taking a Richard Stallman-esque position on H.264
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html
and, as zealots, are refusing to find ways to use an h.264 decoder that you already have on your computer, nor will they license H.264 because VIDEO WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEEE…
Because, as you know, Mozilla is open source and therefore doesn’t make any money so they can’t afford to license anything..
HAHAHAHA, no, just kidding. In 2007 Mozilla made $75,130,722.
But licensing fees?! Those are for suckers.

It isn’t just about the fees. In the article you linked, it’s explained pretty clearly:

Yes, they could license the rights to H.264. But the result would be unusable because Firefox is free software (as in open-source and free to redistribute or modify) and the H.264 license terms don’t allow distribution in that manner.
It’s a patent minefield, so even using one of the existing open-source implementations is super dangerous.
Having Firefox look for a decoder already installed on your computer wouldn’t solve anything, because Windows doesn’t include H.264 codecs by default, so most of Firefox’s users wouldn’t benefit. Also, on Windows it would be a security nightmare.
This won’t end with H.264, and they don’t want to be chasing proprietary video decoder licenses forever.
And anyway, H.264 is bad because the people behind it are trying to make licensing mandatory for publishers. (As in: someday, the Export feature in iMovie might require a credit card number.)
Ordinary people should be able to produce and consume video on the web without worrying about getting sued, but none of the above will ever change if Mozilla capitulates.

Based on this, tj, your anger seems misdirected. Zealots they may be, but Mozilla is one of the very small number of well-funded groups actually fighting to keep the web open and free. Apple’s anti-Flash position also works in the service of that goal, but only by coincidence: Apple’s and Mozilla’s interests happen to align there, because Apple doesn’t control Flash. In this area, they don’t, because Apple does control QuickTime.
The Mozilla Foundation are the good guys. They led us out of the Dark Times when nothing worked on any browser but Internet Explorer. Let’s not forget that.

texburgher:

For whom the bell tolls

Revolutionary HTML 5 video! Huh. I guess at least it’s a nicer piss-off icon than I get with Flash on my iPhone. Still.

Apparently the problem is that I’m using a boring, outmoded browser (Firefox 3.5.7).

(via faruk)

The problem is that Firefox is taking a Richard Stallman-esque position on H.264

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

and, as zealots, are refusing to find ways to use an h.264 decoder that you already have on your computer, nor will they license H.264 because VIDEO WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEEE…

Because, as you know, Mozilla is open source and therefore doesn’t make any money so they can’t afford to license anything..

HAHAHAHA, no, just kidding. In 2007 Mozilla made $75,130,722.

But licensing fees?! Those are for suckers.

It isn’t just about the fees. In the article you linked, it’s explained pretty clearly:

Yes, they could license the rights to H.264. But the result would be unusable because Firefox is free software (as in open-source and free to redistribute or modify) and the H.264 license terms don’t allow distribution in that manner.
It’s a patent minefield, so even using one of the existing open-source implementations is super dangerous.
Having Firefox look for a decoder already installed on your computer wouldn’t solve anything, because Windows doesn’t include H.264 codecs by default, so most of Firefox’s users wouldn’t benefit. Also, on Windows it would be a security nightmare.
This won’t end with H.264, and they don’t want to be chasing proprietary video decoder licenses forever.
And anyway, H.264 is bad because the people behind it are trying to make licensing mandatory for publishers. (As in: someday, the Export feature in iMovie might require a credit card number.)
Ordinary people should be able to produce and consume video on the web without worrying about getting sued, but none of the above will ever change if Mozilla capitulates.

Based on this, tj, your anger seems misdirected. Zealots they may be, but Mozilla is one of the very small number of well-funded groups actually fighting to keep the web open and free. Apple’s anti-Flash position also works in the service of that goal, but only by coincidence: Apple’s and Mozilla’s interests happen to align there, because Apple doesn’t control Flash. In this area, they don’t, because Apple does control QuickTime.

The Mozilla Foundation are the good guys. They led us out of the Dark Times when nothing worked on any browser but Internet Explorer. Let’s not forget that.

Comments (View)