EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

05.26.10

WebM/VP8 is Not Open Source

Posted in Apple, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents at 4:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Based on years of conversations, I am convinced that part of the cause of the problem is the tendency to call the system Linux rather than GNU, and describe it as open source rather than free software.”

Richard Stallman

Summary: MPEG-LA/H.264, Apple, and Microsoft appear to be the only prominent opponents of WebM/VP8; The OSI explains why Google needs to refine the licence

PERHAPS we congratulated Google a little prematurely [1, 2]. There are improvements to be made to Google’s unusual licence, but first, let’s look at the good sides of VP8.

Joe Brockmeier is optimistic about Google’s WebM, Adobe added support for VP8 and Moovida’s support of VP8 is mentioned by Martin Kaba, not to mention Opera’s support (Opera was also a major backer of Ogg).

Looking for a media player to playback your videos converted to open WebM with Miro Video Converter, then grab Moovida media player. Open Source Moovida media player formerly known as Elisa is one of the first media players to boast support of the open source VP8 codec.

There is already fairly widespread support for VP8.

A browser that supports WebM content isn’t much use if there’s no WebM content to play, and Google has that covered too. Anyone opting into YouTube’s HTML5 front-end will be able to use WebM for video playback by appending “&webm=1″ to the URL.

The exceptions, as expected, are Apple and Microsoft, not to mention MPEG-LA. IDG puts it like this:

Google faces off against Microsoft, Apple over Web video standard

[...]

“We now have a great format for video,” added Hakon Wium Lie, Opera’s chief technology officer. “We all have video cameras in our pockets. Let’s use them, let’s back WebM.”

“Microsoft tepid in its support for Google’s WebM video plan,” say Microsoft bloggers as Microsoft promotes H.264 and other problematic codecs.

I’ve been using Real Alternative for years. It works well and is 100% transparent, that is, it doesn’t bug you about anything, ever. It just registers itself as a DirectShow filter (Microsoft-speak for a codec) and with your browsers, then decodes virtually any Real Media file ever created. It’s good enough that I haven’t even considered installing RealPlayer in years.

From South Africa we have:

Unsurprisingly, Apple and Microsoft are among the companies licensing the use of H.264, so stand to make money, and lots of it if the format is widely adopted.

The only other competitor to H.264, until a couple of days ago, was Theora, an open source format favoured by Mozilla, Google and Opera. But the chances of Theora succeeding have always seemed very slim, particularly as Jobs has already made it clear that Apple was looking at hitting Theora hard with patent suits.

Apple and Microsoft have also made it very clear that they wouldn’t be supporting Theora in their future browser releases.

Other competitors of VP8 are spreading FUD, some of which is worth attention. There is another new comparison between VP8 and H.264:

VP8 is now free, but if the quality is substandard, who cares? Well, it turns out that the quality isn’t substandard, so that’s not an issue, but neither is it twice the quality of H.264 at half the bandwidth. See for yourself, below.

To set the table, Sorenson Media was kind enough to encode these comparison files for me to both H.264 and VP8 using their Squish encoding tool. They encoded a standard SD encoding test file that I’ve been using for years. I’ll do more testing once I have access to a VP8 encoder, but wanted to share these quick and dirty results.

Diego’s latest rant is actually not much of a rant. He addresses the alleged FUD that’s mentioned above.

Now, Dark Shikari of x264 fame dissected the codec and in part the file format; his words are – not unexpectedly, especially for those who know him – quite harsh, but as Mike put it “This open sourcing event has legs.”

Perhaps the only real disappointment is that VP8/WebM is not Open Source, according to Michael Tiemann (OSI). Was it too good to be true?

This note from Apple was like a rabid dog barking at the pound, for it seemed to set off a flurry of patent-rattling from all corners, with Microsoft quickly claiming that Salesforce.com infringed nine of their patents, Nokia claiming that Apple infringed 5 more of its patents, HTC getting into the fray, etc.

And then along comes Google. And instead of piling on to this patent suit scrum, they offer immunity instead. Which is astonishing.

I have to give some props to the FSF for asking for precisely what Google seems to have decided to do. They wrote an open letter asking Google to free VP8 and use it on YouTube. The bigger part of that decision now seems to have been effected. Which, to use the FSF’s own adjective, is amazing. And cause for both gratitude and celebration.

And of course this is not the end of the story, but the beginning. The license Google wrote for VP8 smacks of OSD goodness, but it has not yet been submitted to the OSI for approval. Should the OSI approve yet another license? Should the OSI treat a patent grant attached to a license we’ve already approved as two separate items, a patent grant (which is great) and a license we’ve already approved? Clearly Google is trying to do the right thing. We are trying to do the right thing. What remains to be seen is whether the H.264 are going to do the right thing and offer all their patents as required by the Open Standards Requirements (OSR) or whether Apple will do the right thing and defend, rather than attack, the open source community and its right to enjoy watching a movie on the laptop of their choice.

Simon Phipps (OSI) also has a problem with that licence and in IDG he writes:

The announcement last week at Google IO of the creation of the WebM project and the release of the VP8 codec was a positive and welcome development, finally offering an alternative for online media to the royalty-liable H.264 and to Theora. WebM arises from Google’s purchase of ON2 last year and had been widely anticipated

Google did their homework, securing endorsements from competing browser vendors Opera and Mozilla and even from Adobe (possibly in exchange for Google’s endorsement of Flash on their TV platform) and, weakly, from Microsoft. The parade is now in full swing, and we can expect many more announcements of support like the one from the Miro Project. Only Apple was painfully absent, pushing the Google-Apple tension further into the spotlight

[...]

Despite their claims that WebM was been checked for patent risks when ON2 was acquired, Google has neither made its research available nor does it offer a patent indemnity. Google has expressed extreme confidence in the patent safety of WebM, yet has failed to create a patent pool with its other endorsers and grant free and indemnified licenses to WebM contributors.

That means the path is open for those hostile to digital liberty, such as the MPEG-LA licensing cartel, to ‘tax’ VP8 users – they have already declared an intent to do so. Google should rapidly create “WebM-LA” with $0 licensing terms for those willing to commit to digital liberty.

This was also covered by The H:

According to OSI board member Simon Phipps, the VP8 codec, which Google released last week as part of the WebM project, is “not currently open source”. In a blog posting, Phipps notes that the licence used by Google has not been submitted to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) for approval and that it “possibly can’t be approved”. The problem is that although the licence Google uses for VP8 is based on the Apache licence, it includes a “field of use” restriction in the patent grant section which is limited to “this implementation of VP8″.

Matthew Aslett wrote about the subject and heard back from Bruce Perens, who argued: “It really isn’t an open source license, due to an unfortunate word choice in the patent grant language, which is the main chance from the BSD-style license they started with. If you modify the VP8 implementation, you become a patent infringer.”

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

5 Comments

  1. David Gerard said,

    May 26, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Gravatar

    It’s not OSI certified Open Source(tm) because they haven’t taken run the licence past the OSI (yet?).

    However, the Free Software Foundation happily calls it Free Software:

    http://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-webm-and-vp8

    Trademarks and patents are of course problematic (hence Iceweasel), but don’t make free software into non-free software.

    We do need an organisation something like the OSI. It would help if whatever that organisation was would, e.g., remember its registration paperwork and not spend a large chunk of 2009 with corporate status “suspended” … but anyway.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Yes, I noticed the FSF vs OSI situation and in the summary I wrote: “The OSI explains why Google needs to refine the licence” (we should also take quite seriously the words of Bruce Perens, who actually insisted that OSI should be Microsoft-free).

    David Gerard Reply:

    It would be good if Google considered OSI was worth running the licence past. I’m entirely unconvinced Simon Phipps’ piece (shouting at them with a misleading headline then complaining the patent grant isn’t sufficiently extensive) is going to help this happen.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    What about Michael’s piece? Or Perens?

    David Gerard Reply:

    I suppose we’ll see if they inspire Google to bother talking to OSI.

What Else is New


  1. More Media Reports About Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    What the media is saying about the letter from Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner whilst EPO communications shift attention to shallow puff pieces about how wonderful Benoît Battistelli is



  2. Beware Team UPC's Biggest Two Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Claims that a Unified Patent Court (UPC) will commence next year are nothing but a fantasy of the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, who keeps telling lies to French media (some of which he passes EPO money to, just like he passes EPO money to his other employer)



  3. Diversity at the EPO

    Two decades of EPO with 16-17 years under the control of French Presidents (and nowadays predominantly French management in general with Inventor Award held in France almost half the time) is "diversity at the EPO"



  4. Orrin Hatch, Sponsored the Most by the Pharmaceutical Industry, Tries to Make Its Patents Immune From Scrutiny (PTAB)

    Orrin Hatch is the latest example of laws being up for sale, i.e. companies can 'buy' politicians to act as their 'couriers' and pass laws for them, including laws pertaining to patents



  5. Links 17/6/2018: Linux 4.18 RC1 and Deepin 15.6 Released

    Links for the day



  6. To Keep the Patent System Alive and Going Practitioners Will Have to Accept Compromises on Scope Being Narrowed

    35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts



  7. The Affairs of the USPTO Have Turned Into Somewhat of a Battle Against the Courts, Which Are Simply Applying the Law to Invalidate US Patents

    The struggle between law, public interest, and the Cult of Patents (which only ever celebrates more patents and lawsuits) as observed in the midst of recent events in the United States



  8. Patent Marketing Disguised as Patent 'Advice'

    The meta-industry which profits from patents and lawsuits claims that it's guiding us and pursuing innovation, but in reality its sole goal is enriching itself, even if that means holding science back



  9. Microsoft is Still 'Cybermobbing' Its Competition Using Patent Trolls Such as Finjan

    In the "cybersecurity" space, a sub-domain where many software patents have been granted by the US patent office, the patent extortion by Microsoft-connected trolls (and Microsoft's 'protection' racket) seems to carry on; but Microsoft continues to insist that it has changed its ways



  10. Links 16/6/2018: LiMux Story, Okta Openwashing and More

    Links for the day



  11. The EPO's Response to the Open Letter About Decline in Patent Quality as the Latest Example of Arrogance and Resistance to Facts, Truth

    Sidestepping the existential crisis of the EPO (running out of work and issuing many questionable patents with expectation of impending layoffs), the PR people at the Office choose a facts-denying, face-saving 'damage control' strategy while staff speaks out, wholeheartedly agreeing with concerned stakeholders



  12. In the United States the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Which Assures Patent Quality, is Still Being Smeared by Law Firms That Profit From Patent Maximalism, Lawsuits

    Auditory roles which help ascertain high quality of patents (or invalidate low-quality patents, at least those pointed out by petitions) are being smeared, demonised as "death squads" and worked around using dirty tricks that are widely described as "scams"



  13. The 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI) Hype, Propped Up by Events of the European Patent Office (EPO), is Infectious and It Threatens Patent Quality Worldwide

    Having spread surrogate terms like “4IR” (somewhat of a 'mask' for software patents, by the EPO's own admission in the Gazette), the EPO continues with several more terms like “ICT” and now we’re grappling with terms like “AI”, which the media endlessly perpetuates these days (in relation to patents it de facto means little more than "clever algorithms")



  14. Links 15/6/2018: HP Chromebook X2 With GNU/Linux Software, Apple Admits and Closes a Back Door ('Loophole')

    Links for the day



  15. The '4iP Council' is a Megaphone of Team UPC and Team Battistelli at the EPO

    The EPO keeps demonstrating lack of interest in genuine patent quality (it uses buzzwords to compensate for deviation from the EPC and replaces humans with shoddy translators); it is being aided by law firms which work for patent trolls and think tanks that propel their interests



  16. Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner Find the Courage to Express Concerns About Battistelli's Ugly Legacy and Low Patent Quality

    The astounding levels of abuse at the EPO have caused some of the EPO's biggest stakeholders to speak out and lash out, condemning the Office for mismanagement amongst other things



  17. IAM Concludes Its Latest Anti-§ 101 Think Tank, Featuring Crooked Benoît Battistelli

    The attack on 35 U.S.C. § 101, which invalidates most if not all software patents, as seen through the lens of a Battistelli- and Iancu-led lobbying event (set up by IAM)



  18. Google Gets Told Off -- Even by the Typically Supportive EFF and TechDirt -- Over Patenting of Software

    The EFF's Daniel Nazer, as well as TechDirt's founder Mike Masnick, won't tolerate Google's misuse of Jarek Duda's work; the USPTO should generally reject all applications for software patents -- something which a former Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO seems to be accepting now (that such patents have no potency after Alice)



  19. From the Eastern District of Texas to Delaware, US Patent Litigation is (Overall) Still Declining

    Patent disputes/conflicts are increasingly being settled outside the courts and patents that aren't really potent/eligible are being eliminated or never brought forth at all



  20. Links 13/6/2018: Cockpit 170, Plasma 5.13, Krita 4.0.4

    Links for the day



  21. When the USPTO Grants Patents in Defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101 the Courts Will Eventually Squash These Anyway

    Software/abstract patents, as per § 101 (Section 101) which relates to Alice Corp v CLS Bank at the US Supreme Court, are not valid in the United States, albeit one typically has to pay a fortune for a court battle to show it because the patent office (USPTO) is still far too lenient and careless



  22. Buzzwords and Three-Letter Acronyms Still Abused by the EPO to Grant a Lot of Patents on Algorithms

    Aided by Microsoft lobbying (with its very many patent trolls) as well as corrupt Battistelli, the push for software patenting under the guise of "artificial intelligence" ("AI") carries on, boosted by Battistelli's own "Pravda" (which he writes for), IAM Magazine



  23. The United States is Far Better Off With the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), So Why Do Lawyers Attack It?

    The anti-PTAB lobby (which is basically the pro-troll or pro-litigation lobby) continues to belittle and insult PTAB, having repeatedly failed to dismantle it; in the meantime PTAB is disarming several more patent trolls and removing from the system patents which were granted in error (as well as the associated lawsuits)



  24. Links 12/6/2018: Neovim 0.3 and Wine 3.10

    Links for the day



  25. Corrupt Benoît Battistelli Promotes Software Patents in IAM's Patent Trolls-Funded Event in the United States

    With less than 3 weeks remaining for Battistelli's term he engages in gross revisionism, lobbying, and even looting of the patent office



  26. The EPO's 'Expert' Georg Weber is Still Advocating Software Patents in Europe (But He Disguises Them Using Buzzwords)

    The EPO's overzealous support for software patents continues unabated while the European Parliament looks the other way; this is part of the plan to expand patent scope in Europe and flood the continent with low-quality patents (causing a ruinous litigation boom like in China)



  27. Battistelli's EPO is Outdoing North Korea When It Comes to Propaganda and Abuses Against Staff

    Battistelli’s ‘scorched Earth’ approach — his sole legacy at the EPO — has left many workers in mental breakdowns (if not dead), but to celebrate the ‘Battistelli years’ three weeks before the end of his term the Office issues new propaganda material (pertaining exclusively to the Battistelli years, 2010 to 2018) while Battistelli-leaning media offers ‘cover’



  28. IPBC, a Patent Trolls-Funded Event of IAM, is Advancing the Attacks on Section 101/Alice

    Andrei Iancu preaches to the litigation 'industry' in an event (lobbying opportunity) organised by the patent trolls' lobby, IAM



  29. PTAB Carries on Undeterred and Unabated, Courts Are Becoming Less Tolerant of Low-Quality Patents

    With the shift away from the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) and with PTAB applying growing levels of scrutiny to patents the likelihood that abstract patents will endure at the patent office or the courts is greatly diminished



  30. Apple v Samsung Not Over, Hearing on a New Design Patent Trial Next Month

    Apple's legal battles against phones that have Linux inside them simply aren't ending; meanwhile, there's more evidence that Apple would be wise to simply push for patent reforms, namely further restrictions on patent scope


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts