Fedora Video (fedoravideo(a)gmail.com) said: Hi Troll. Don't Troll. Bill

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 17:23 -0400, Fedora Video wrote: Nice trolling, really, but too blatant. Try again, you may have more luck next time. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:27:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Actually, government-granted monopolies are the problem. The codecs and software run just fine, over here in a free(-er) country. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: [lots elided] Oh come on, this is such a ridiculous argument. Of course moving electron is something physical, unfortunately for the author that part is *not novel*, it's what computers do, and it is not an inventive step you can claim as new, which is one of the fundamental criteria to award a patent ... in theory because POs* all over the globe do not do their job in this regard. In fact those that still want to argue on this line become even more ridiculous and claim their software move electrons in a special way, different from another program ... of course for some reason they do not patent patterns of electrons moving, but they patent, in effect, ideas (not specific solutions, but the whole field) and mathematical formulas. But the problem is even deeper. Software Patents very seldom promote any kind of innovation, on the contrary they are a weapon to keep small firms from growing into dangerous competitors in established markets. In the EU patents just exist, they are not basing their existence on a constitutional mandate, but the EPC** explicitly exclude software as such. In the US instead patents have their root in a specific constitutional provision that says that this kind of monopoly can only be granted if it promotes innovation, this means there is no specific ban on software patents but given they arguably do not promote innovation they should naturally not be allowed, now you just need to wait for the US Congress to realize the Constitution tells them they cannot allow patents that do not promote innovation, good luck with that :) Anyway, software patents are filed in the EU, and are very often accepted by the EPO. They not sanctioned by any treaty, also thanks to a hard battle fought by activists and the FFII a few years ago that resulted in the first time a grass roots semi-unstructured lobbying group was successful in overthrowing a European Directive in Parliament. Software Patents are not good in any way, they are bad in many ways, including the fact that even those that do not like/believe/want them are forced to file patents once they reach a certain size to have some defensive weapons. And this compounds the problem, because too often these patents are later gathered by patent trolls when companies file for bankruptcy and are forced to sell all assets they can spare. Simo. * Patent Offices ** European Patent Convention -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Unfortunately that does not matter ... what matters is who is sending the most bribes..^W donations. The software patent supporters send more of them so they win. Unless the supreme court does its job and tell them to stop (which it had many chances to do and refused).

I actually support this idea. What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ? Em terça-feira, 20 de março de 2012, Fedora Video&lt;fedoravideo(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu: be doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own. They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously this means H.264 in Fedora. With Firefox's adoption there will be no web browser supported on Fedora which doesn't support H.264 (Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror), and not a moment too soon since flash support on Linux is going away. making them irrelevant. They've gone from the #1 browser to the #4 directly as a result of not adopting H.264. H.264 is the only video that is good enough for the web and the alternatives are just as patented which is why Google did not make good on their commitments to deploy them. Even Youtube only offers WebM on a small number of unpopular videos: The bandwidth demands of a full WebM deployment would put them out of business and would break their site on apple devices which don't work if WebM is offered. Ubuntu and Debian both, not coincidentally, ship H.264 while Fedora has not. There can be no question of freedom here since no one doubts that Debian places freedom as the highest priority. It is fedora's continued lack of H.264 which is actually the violation of freedom. Who wants a desktop with zero video support? Ffmpeg, VLC, Mplayer, gstreamer, Blender and almost all free software video programs are based on H.264 and Mpeg. Go look on pirate bay: No one distributes in anything but mpeg formats. only foolish religion which has kept H.264 out of Fedora. announced they would be abandoning Theora and switching to H.264 (they never adopted WebM). unlicensed video like WebM and Theora and adopt the industry standard x264. Our political preferences are worthless if Fedora is irrelevant. It is time to regain relevance! -- AVI ALKALAY ♦ אבי אלקלעי information architect • software engineer • hacker digital media • security • mobility • business intelligence ☎ +55-11-9659-9059 (Mobile • FaceTime • WhatsApp) ✤ http://Avi.Alkalay.net/blog <http://avi.alkalay.net/> ★ avibrazil(a)gmail.com (Google Docs • Talk • Latitude) @ avibrazil (Twitter • Facebook)

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 01:46 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Regardless, as far as I know, Ubuntu does not ship h.264 encoding or decoding support in any of its standard, official releases. It has only done so in custom OEM builds, with specific licensing agreements in place - the systems provided with h264 support were licensed. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/05/canonical_h264_video/ , for e.g., from when this 'ubuntu ships h264' meme first started going around. It really doesn't. If you google 'ubuntu h264', what you get are lots of instructions for installing packages from third-party repos. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This is not true according to the debian social contract. http://www.debian.org/social_contract There is no mention of copyright on the page. It is not a page about copyright. Your argument is refuted most strongly by *License Must Not Be Specific to Debian* *No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups* *No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor* The document is quite clear that Debian will not distribute software which only they can distribute or which can only be distributed non-commercially. Debian distributes H.264 because it is free at least in the majority of the world which does not have a terrorist government. Put down your religion and look again. On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt;wrote: Ubuntu's parent company is headquartered in the UK just like RedHat is headquartered in the US. If the US's repressive laws are holding Fedora back, why not simply open a Fedora organization in the Isle of Man just like Ubuntu has done. In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264 because it will be part of Firefox.

On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote: That may be the policy but the difference is that Debian is free to interpret decoding as non-infringing because they don't have share the same risks. Rahul

----- Original Message ----- Even if Mozilla decides to ship theirs own bundled h264 decoding library, it will be against Fedora policies and it would have to be unbundled. The only thing we can do here is to make it easier for people to get these not nice codecs if they demand the support. Maybe in the same way as with Fluendo MP3 long time ago? If you want it, take the risks on you and pay the licence fees... But it brings us back to the "do we want to support proprietary patented codecs and actually make them stronger by paying them"? In the embedded world it's really more difficult - that's why FF mobile is going to adopt h264 - hw decoders as CPUs are not capable to decode the video on the fly. On desktops, we are able to decode WebM without hw support (even it's nice to have). R.

----- Original Message ----- But that's the only way how we can legally point people to the "solution". We can't show the PackageKit window saying - now enable the repo we shouldn't talk about :D and say install gstreamer-plugins-ugly. In that case we can just ship it in our own repos :) On the other hand - we can show you the way, we do not agree with (as it's proprietary non free implementation), you have to pay - but that's the penalty for not using Google :) R.

On 21.3.2012 03:41, Adam Williamson wrote: Fedora as shipped from get.fedoraproject.org won't contain H.264 codec. Which doesn't mean that my computer won't be able to play H.264 movies as well as it does playing MP3s now. Matěj

On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote: Actually no. You don't understand the situation. Firefox does not include H.264 at all. Firefox will play H.264 if the underlying platform includes the codecs which is not the case for Fedora by default although assuming they switch over to using Gstreamer instead of bundling codecs, any user will be install the codecs they want later. Rahul

On Mar 21, 2012 2:30 AM, "Fedora Video" <fedoravideo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: wrote: http://www.debian.org/social_contract copyright. which only they can distribute or which can only be distributed non-commercially. the world which does not have a terrorist government. Put down your religion and look again. wrote: headquartered in the US. a Fedora organization in the Isle of Man just like Ubuntu has done. it will be part of Firefox. It won't actually be part of Firefox at all as they are providing the ability to talk to an OS provided set of codecs including H.264 so it's essentially a pass through. The linux means of doing this will likely be gstreamer. Peter

On Mar 21, 2012 12:47 AM, "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; wrote: Which doesn't provide that much protection as a couple of online poker companies recently discovered Peter

Fedora Video <fedoravideo <at> gmail.com> writes: doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own. They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously this means H.264 in Fedora. With Firefox's adoption there will be no web browser supported on Fedora which doesn't support H.264 (Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror), and not a moment too soon since flash support on Linux is going away. them irrelevant. They've gone from the #1 browser to the #4 directly as a result of not adopting H.264. H.264 is the only video that is good enough for the web and the alternatives are just as patented which is why Google did not make good on their commitments to deploy them. Even Youtube only offers WebM on a small number of unpopular videos: The bandwidth demands of a full WebM deployment would put them out of business and would break their site on apple devices which don't work if WebM is offered. and Debian both, not coincidentally, ship H.264 while Fedora has not. There can be no question of freedom here since no one doubts that Debian places freedom as the highest priority. It is fedora's continued lack of H.264 which is actually the violation of freedom. Who wants a desktop with zero video support? Ffmpeg, VLC, Mplayer, gstreamer, Blender and almost all free software video programs are based on H.264 and Mpeg. Go look on pirate bay: No one distributes in anything but mpeg formats. foolish religion which has kept H.264 out of Fedora. announced they would be abandoning Theora and switching to H.264 (they never adopted WebM). unlicensed video like WebM and Theora and adopt the industry standard x264. Our political preferences are worthless if Fedora is irrelevant. It is time to regain relevance! You can have "H.264 in Fedora" right now: enable RPM Fusion and install the FFmpeg libraries. libavcodec plays H.264 just fine (and I think even VA API is supported for HW decoding). I suppose Mozilla will use GStreamer on Linux. RPM Fusion has gstreamer-ffmpeg, which is what you will be looking for.

On 20/03/12 21:23, Fedora Video wrote: mobile firefox only. As long as "h.264 is pre-included in the device. read the dev thread for background: http://tinyurl.com/4kcmbx7 -- Regards, Frank "Jack of all, fubars"