I manage the audio-video section of the GNU web site http://audio-video.gnu.org/. I have tried the Theora codec and am very impressed by the level of integration with free desktops and the bit rate/quality combinations. I intend to move all video content to the Theora codec partly for technical reasons but mainly to promote free and open formats. I do have longer term worries, projecting forward when Theora becomes a generally important codec standard competing against WMV, real and qt. Several games are open season for the likes of MS, Real or Apple. For example; 1) Poisoning the standard: Releasing a player which plays Theora plus a version with secret changes. A common non-free media editing suite creates Theora with those secret changes whose code is based the theora code base. 2) Hijacking the standard and code base. A player, either one of the big 3 or a start-up release a codec based almost entirely on the Theora code base. Secret implementation changes make files created increasingly incompatible with Theora players. Development forks at that point, Theora development then has to compete with the forked codebase. The forked codebase possibly an incompatible version of Theora with Digital Restrictions management as a 'value added' feature. A solution to pre-emptively defend the theora project from such games would be for further changes to be placed under a license which requires public disclosure of derivative source code. Given incompatible versions based on the Theora code base would no longer be secret, business plans based around releasing incompatible versions will be substantially less attractive to those so inclined. The GNU GPL would provide protection. Regards Nick.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:27:00PM +0100, Nick Hill wrote:> I manage the audio-video section of the GNU web site > http://audio-video.gnu.org/. I have tried the Theora codec and am very > impressed by the level of integration with free desktops and the bit > rate/quality combinations.Thanks for your kind comments and support of free multimedia formats!> [embrace and extend] > A solution to pre-emptively defend the theora project from such games > would be for further changes to be placed under a license which requires > public disclosure of derivative source code. Given incompatible versions > based on the Theora code base would no longer be secret, business plans > based around releasing incompatible versions will be substantially less > attractive to those so inclined. The GNU GPL would provide protection.Doing so would also raise the barrier to entry for people wanting to use our formats in proprietary applications, both software- and hardware- based. Network effects are extremely important in file format success, and we have generally felt that licensing our reference implementations under a BSD license to encourage the broadest possible adoption of free formats is a more important goal. Also, the format specification is itself freely available and freely implementable by everyone (that being what makes Theora a free format), and we explicitly encourage outside implementations. Thus, while a GPL reference implementation would raise the barrier for a significant classes of casual adopters, it is not a significant impediment to a resourceful group intent on embrace-and-extend. We do generally use the GPL for our application software, however. A new multimedia format lives and dies by the quality of its tool support, and this is a place where it is most effective to out-code proprietary offerings. The protections of the GPL are useful at the application level for all the reasons you cite. (Not that we as Xiph have done a great job with tools, but others are starting to, as you've noticed.) Finally, we do claim Theora and our other names as trademarks, and will defend them against non-conforming implementations. This does a lot to prevent the sort of confusion that could lead users to adopting a poised fork of the standard, while still providing for the right to fork under a different name in support of the goals of Software Freedom. People are welcome to develop their own Theora-related code under whatever license they wish, including the GPL, but I hope this explains our (Xiph.org's) reasoning on the licensing of our reference implementations. Sincerely, -r P.S. You brought up DRM. Such methods are orthogonal to codec design/choice and usually implemented at the container level, so I don't think this is a particular concern. (Though I do understand that cultural issues have kept certain formats traditionally associated with open exchange taboo among those who insist on DRM-encumbering their content.) DRM can as easily be applied to any Ogg file, for example by running it through gpg. However, we generally recommend those interested in DRM with Ogg Vorbis or Theora add a comment "COPYPROTECTED=yes" to the native metadata. Such a scheme is simple, easily extendable, and exactly as effective at the more cumbersome DRM schemes in use with other formats.
Nick Hill wrote:> I intend to move all video content to the Theora codec partly for > technical reasons but mainly to promote free and open formats.That is great to hear!> 1) Poisoning the standard: Releasing a player which plays Theora plus a > version with secret changes. A common non-free media editing suite > creates Theora with those secret changes whose code is based the theora > code base.I believe that the additional requirements in the Xiph license over the BSD license hinge on Trade Mark protection. I actually cannot find a copy of the license on the site or on the opensource.org site so I cannot tell you for sure. As long as the trade mark is enforced, I believe that the Xiph foundation could protect against incompatible forks calling the codec 'Theora'. Additionally, the FAQ states: http://www.theora.org/theorafaq.html#14 "That means that commercial developers may independently write Theora software _which is compatible_ with the specification for no charge and without restrictions of any kind." (emphasis added) But I don't know on what that is based.> 2) Hijacking the standard and code base. A player, either one of the big > 3 or a start-up release a codec based almost entirely on the Theora code > base.This is a possibility, although for MS to say that Theora was better than wmv and to start using it instead would be a big concession.> A solution to pre-emptively defend the theora project from such games > would be for further changes to be placed under a license which requires > public disclosure of derivative source code. Given incompatible versions > based on the Theora code base would no longer be secret, business plans > based around releasing incompatible versions will be substantially less > attractive to those so inclined. The GNU GPL would provide protection.I don't believe that you will get very far with this proposition. The Xiph foundation seems very committed to the most open license possible. As I understand it, they want the standard to be widely adopted, even if it means that others can profit from the open code. So long as these companies cannot get patents that also cover the Xiph codecs, I believe that they will be happy relying on what people choose to give back to the codec. I assume that you mean the LGPL as opposed to the GPL proper; the GPL proper would mean that Theora libraries could not even be _used_ in closed source programmes - a key intention. The LGPL would mean that the libraries could be used / linked to by anything, but changes to, or incorporation of, the libraries' code would need to be opened. I think that this part of your argument has merit, and I think that opinions vary as to whether these codecs should be LGPL or BSD-style. I imagine that convincing them to change would be a challenge. The foundation would likely want to keep all codecs under the same license (with good reason) and so the Theora-specific list may not be the best forum for this discussion (which I am sure must have already been had somewhere!) Aaron -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3268 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20050822/475fabb3/smime.bin
Ralph Giles wrote:> Doing so would also raise the barrier to entry for people wanting to use > our formats in proprietary applications, both software- and hardware- > based. Network effects are extremely important in file format success, > and we have generally felt that licensing our reference implementations > under a BSD license to encourage the broadest possible adoption of free > formats is a more important goal.Is there reason to believe that proprietary applications will incorporate a free Theora in their programs?
Hey Nick, If you do work for the GNU project, then you should have ask your boss before posting this one because I remember he said the change from LGPL to BSD was a good thing. At least that`s what he said about Vorbis. After some googling, I found the quote: In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use." Here`s the link http://www.vorbis.com/press/20010226.txt Cheers Pat PS: proposing to use GPL for ogg is not doable because because any software using it should be GPLed (think about easycreator or Nero). Maybe LGPL but GPL no! Are you sure youre working for GNU? these guys know it all about licesing stuff and wouldn`t make such a mistake, no offense :). --- Nick Hill <t0@nickhill.co.uk> wrote:> I do have longer term worries, projecting forward > when Theora becomes a > generally important codec standard competing against > WMV, real and qt.____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> We can make an argument, though, that adoption of theora will> (roughly) follow adoption patterns that the vorbis codec did. And we > clearly saw more adoption of the vorbis codec as a _direct_ result of > relicensing from LGPL to our current BSD-style license. This is the > major reason why our later codecs (including theora) have chosen this > BSD-style license to begin with (relicensing is a pain!). I was in favor of this licensing change for OGG/Vorbis, and I think the same reasons apply to OGG/Theora. In most cases, it is better to get the power of copyleft than to maximize the popularity of a particular free program. But in these cases, we want people to switch to this format.
> I was in favor of this licensing change for > OGG/Vorbis, and I think > the same reasons apply to OGG/Theora.hey rms, As you never miss an occasion to remind people of the GNU/Linux naming thing, I thought it would be fair to remind you that it?s Ogg, not OGG. see that link: http://www.vorbis.com/ot/20030318.html#id2727368 ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs