Applesoft, Ogg, and the future of web video
Will the real open codec please stand up?
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
Two years ago, cosmonaut and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth challenged open sourcers to turn the Linux desktop into a piece of art.
They should "out Apple" Apple, he said. They should fashion beautiful software and online services that reach a wider audience of consumer users.
Shuttleworth's Canonical has now launched Ubuntu 10.04, which goes a long way towards that Mactastic vision, offering new tools for music and video and all sorts of online services, all swaddled in a cool (and purple) UI.
The biggest change is a first not just for Ubuntu but for all Linux distros: an online music store akin to iTunes, the Apple app that revolutionized over-the-air music services. Called Ubuntu One, this new service is integrated with Rhythmbox, Ubuntu's default system for playing and ripping songs.
But there's a catch - and it's a catch that won't please open source purists. Ubuntu One serves up tunes via MP3 - the ubiquitous but proprietary and patented format for coding and decoding music - and it won't use Ogg Vorbis, the patent-free open-source alternative from Xiph.org that's offered under the GPL and a BSD-like license.
What's more, Canonical - Ubuntu's commercial sponsor - is now the only Linux maker to license H.264/AVC, the closed and patented technology used to compress video. Yes, there's an alternative to H.264. Yes, it's open source. And yes, it's free. It's called Ogg Theora, and it too is from Xiph.org.
Canonical's MP3 choice doesn't conform with pure open source ideology, but it's likely dictated by the sheer volume of music that already encoded with MP3. But the licensing of H.264 comes at the point in the web's evolution when netizens are crusading to prevent H.264 from becoming to video what MP3 is to music: a de-facto standard that must be licensed from patent holders.
The fate of this crusade could decide the future of the open web.
“It's probably not going to go over that well with the community because we all live under the threat of software patents”
- SFLC counsel Aaron Williamson
Just as HTML5 is being touted as the way to build free and open web video, many of the big names doing the touting are also threatening to destroy that freedom. They're building video into browsers and applications using the closed and proprietary H.264.
The Software Freedom Law Center - the legal group that represents open source against patent holders and a famous defender of the GPL - told The Reg that the use of licensed and patented technologies like MP3 and H.264 by companies like Canonical could create bad feeling in the open-source community.
SFLC counsel Aaron Williamson said that while it might make sense for a commercial operation to license patented codecs in case it was prosecuted, "Linux distos - or other free software projects - shouldn't take licenses like that. It's probably not going to go over that well with the community because we all live under the threat of software patents."
Show me the money
While it's tempting to paint this as an academic debate - open source versus closed source - it's really about money. It's about profit and margins.
Chris "Monty" Montgomery - director of the Xiph.org Foundation, which sits behind Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora for music and video - said that the reason people should get behind open source is not philosophical. It's financial.
Hardware and software makers and internet service providers pay expensive fees to use MP3 or H.264. And those charging the fees - Thompson on MP3 and MPEG LA on H.264 - can always increase them. Some outfits opt for open source simply to avoid these fees. "The people...standing behind Ogg are doing it for a profit motive," Montgomery said bluntly.
One of those is Opera Software, whose latest browser - Opera 10.50 - gives you HTML5 video via the Ogg Theora video codec. Opera's chief technology officer Hakon Wium Lie supports open standards like Ogg because they mean companies don't have to pay a license that damages profits and margins. Opera is not an open-source browser. Ogg just makes business sense.
Next page: Nice little business you got there...
COMMENTS
Remarkably Uninformed
"If you don't want to pay the toll, build your own damned bridge (without copying from anyone else, mind!) Or use another, cheaper, rival, bridge and play the two against each other."
Your ignorance of all things patent is screaming. Simply, the patents in question PROHIBIT you from building "your own damned bridge", because they claim complete control over the *idea* of a "bridge". You can't build it because they claim to own the *concept*.
"If you just don't like software patents, guess what? There's a way to get rid of them: It's called an "election"—you may have heard of the concept. Educate your friends, colleagues, relatives. Tell them to educate *their* friends, colleagues, etc., and use your votes to change society to better fit your preferences. (Of course, if you fail to achieve it, it's probably fair to say that the rest of society doesn't agree with you and you'll just have to suck it up.)"
Again with the ignorance. You don't "elect" patents or those who work in the USPTO. And your participation in any election will have zero impact on the USPTO in any event, because it is not a political organization.
In order to change the way the USPTO does business requires millions and millions of dollars in bribes ... um ... "lobbying activities" to convince various political entities that the way you want to do business is better for the country than the way business is being done. Forming a community action group as you suggest will just waste your time and the time of those attending your little meetings, and will accomplish exactly nothing toward modifying patent regulations.
I know it's fun for you to whine about the whiners, but it helps if you demonstrate some intelligence in your whining. Otherwise, you're perceived as being equally stupid to the whiners, and that's not a strong position to be in.
@What's all the whining about?
"If you don't want to pay the toll, build your own damned bridge (without copying from anyone else, mind!) Or use another, cheaper, rival, bridge and play the two against each other."
Maybe you don't understand the differences between copyright and patents. Once an algorithm is patented, new implementations of that algorithm may not be used. This is true even the developer had no knowledge or influence from the original patent.
Programming is like math. Thousands of developers, working in the same domain, trying to derive an efficient algorithm in the same problem, are bound to have some overlapping algorithms.
Bringing patents into the mix means developers owe royalties on algorithms they themselves have derived and written into their own implementation. This is synonymous to telling a writer there are certain ideas they may not speak about unless they pay the royalties.
Good article, but a little off
You make it sound like those in the MPEG-LA H.264 patent pool are getting rich on licenses. Even if there are millions in income from licensing each year, look at how many members are in the pool. Then look at those members' revenues. If Apple made $1 million a year from its membership in the patent pool, they would hardly notice, or care. Smaller shops might benefit from licensing fees, but companies like Apple and Microsoft aren't looking to get rich on codec licenses.
The reason Apple and Microsoft and others promote H.264 is because they fear patent litigation. It is much more costly to fight a long, drawn out patent battle once they start earning revenues from the codec when they can spend a couple million a year on licenses and have peace of mind. Just imagine how terrified Apple would be if they used an "open" codec for iTunes and then, after billions of videos had been sold, some patent troll took them to court. The cost might be enormous. It's much easier to just pay the licensing costs and avoid the headache. They just want legal clarity. That's it.
And the only reason the open source community opposes H.264 is not because of some idealistic vision of "freedom" but because they don't want to pay any licensing costs to produce open source software that does H.264 encoding/decoding. I agree that the patent system in the U.S. is ridiculous and should be revised, but this is not a battle of good versus evil. It's a simple game of economic stakes. Big companies stand to lose much more in patent litigation than do open source advocates, who are likely to use the codec without paying royalties anyway.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
