Discussion Forums > Technology
Open Video on a more Open Internet
dankles:
--- Quote from: c614h2 on July 07, 2009, 08:43:16 AM ---The trouble with ogg thedora is that it's shit. I suppose it might compare favorable to, I don't know, old versions of real media, and it can deliver quality at least similar to what's on youtube, but that isn't saying very much.
Still. Better than flash.
--- End quote ---
Theora isn't as good as say xvid, but that is due to the patent issue that we've been talking about in that last few posts. The ISO Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) has so many efing patents on video compression technologies that it makes it damn near imposable to make any really good and Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) compression technology.
At least vorbis was able to best mp3 in quality....
bloody000:
--- Quote from: dankles on July 07, 2009, 02:46:08 PM ---
--- Quote from: c614h2 on July 07, 2009, 08:43:16 AM ---The trouble with ogg thedora is that it's shit. I suppose it might compare favorable to, I don't know, old versions of real media, and it can deliver quality at least similar to what's on youtube, but that isn't saying very much.
Still. Better than flash.
--- End quote ---
Theora isn't as good as say xvid, but that is due to the patent issue that we've been talking about in that last few posts. The ISO Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) has so many efing patents on video compression technologies that it makes it damn near imposable to make any really good and Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) compression technology.
At least vorbis was able to best mp3 in quality....
--- End quote ---
No it's due to VP3 is a piece of crap and On2 know that which is why they donated it and moved on.
kostya:
--- Quote from: dankles on July 07, 2009, 06:42:12 AM ---
--- Quote from: kyanwan on July 07, 2009, 06:27:22 AM ---patented for the sole purpose of making it freely usable (link is old, but it shows my point)
--- End quote ---
Wait, so the guy is using a patent to protect the free software comunity? Am I reading that correctly? If so, wow! Thats actually cool. And here I thought all software patents were evil....
--- End quote ---
It is still extremely evil and proprietary. He went from the normal innovation killing evil to just heavily maiming innovation and telling it that it did not need those limbs.
If you read his legal release carefully, he only allows the use of his patents in programs released under the GNU GPL, which is a very copy left limited license. If you want to release your software under the BSD, Eclipse, Apache, or even LGPL license, you still need to contact him, beg for his permission, and negotiate terms and payment.
Unfortunately, we arrive at the biggest problem in all of free software, there is no way to stop people from abusing it without a very restricted license.
dankles:
--- Quote from: kostya on July 19, 2009, 04:47:13 AM ---It is still extremely evil and proprietary. He went from the normal innovation killing evil to just heavily maiming innovation and telling it that it did not need those limbs.
If you read his legal release carefully, he only allows the use of his patents in programs released under the GNU GPL, which is a very copy left limited license. If you want to release your software under the BSD, Eclipse, Apache, or even LGPL license, you still need to contact him, beg for his permission, and negotiate terms and payment.
Unfortunately, we arrive at the biggest problem in all of free software, there is no way to stop people from abusing it without a very restricted license.
--- End quote ---
Well... some people like that idea. It ensures that the code conforms to the famous (or infamous) four freedoms:
--- Quote --- * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
--- End quote ---
Some may say that forcing the code to be "free" like the GPL does is taking away freedom. Well really that's just a fallacy if your goal is to maintain the 4 previously stated freedoms. How can a rule to keep things free take away freedom? I mean really? It's like saying that a "rule" to freely breath air is taking away our freedom. This is just silly.
If your goal is to not maintain those freedoms then what are you doing trying to bother with the free software in the first place?
And the reason the said software must be GPL has more to do with the code being GPL rather than the patent.
Even without the patent, you still have to keep the GPL license regardless.... If I'm not mistaken. The patent is there simply to protect against other patents that might creep up.
Have you ever heard of patent wars? You fair much better when you have guns to fire back with.
bloody000:
oh god no... FSF kool-aid! Run while you still can people!!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version