On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, tom smith wrote:
> Nokia is opposed to ogg vorbis. Wonder why.
> Smitty
> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf
I'm a little confused by this phrase:
"proprietary technology such as Ogg"
Last I checked, Ogg is an open (set of) standard(s) unencumbered by
software patents. One might point out that VP3 (the codec underlying
Theora) is patented, but the patent holder (On2 Technologies) has granted
universal, irrevocable royalty-free license -- which is, ultimately, even
better than being entirely patent-free. Vorbis and Speex are
patent-free, as far as I'm aware.
So, I'm curious about whether anyone on this list has any ideas about how
Nokia means that Ogg is a proprietary technology that shouldn't be used,
while royalty-encumbered MPEG formats *should* be used. The last
sentence of the PDF seems to indicate that the "perception" of Ogg codecs
being free is wrong somehow, but I seem to have missed the news to this
effect. What are the arguments behind the position that Ogg codecs are
*not* free?
Also . . . the Nokia argument against Ogg, when examined in light of what
I know about the codecs that Nokia favors (MPEG H.264 and AAC), seems
kind of specious at best. Broken down, it seems to go something like
this:
1. MPEG H.264 and AAC are proprietary, but royalty fees are reasonable.
2. Ogg is somehow proprietary (I won't argue against this at the
moment), but is (apparently) not subject to royalties, and is perceived
as "more free".
3. The perception of Ogg as "more free" is therefore wrong.
4. Since the perception of Ogg as "more free" is wrong, and it is in
fact proprietary . . .
5. We should use the proprietary, royalty-encumbered MPEG H.264 and AAC
codecs instead.
6. Failing that, we should use some other proprietary codecs, possibly
including those whose patents have, or are about to, expire.
So . . . what am I missing? This does not strike me as a sound argument.
I'm also entirely unsure of why Nokia would be making this argument.
Last I checked, Nokia was getting *more* involved in open source
development, but a position that fraudulently encourages people to avoid
open formats (if that's what's happening) would effectively bar open
source software from participating in a standards-based media
distribution ecosystem.
Comments? Explanations? I find this whole thing rather confusing at the
moment.
-- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:05:09 EDT