Re: "Open Web Platform" versus "Web Platform" Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

But simply stating as "not open source" is what is confusing the issue. It
would be more accurate and less confusing to say, "The source is
copyrighted under a Free Software or Open Source license but there are
patent issues restricting its use in some countries". This way you're not
allowing the two different things to be confusingly intertwined.

To Quote from John:
"X264 is an encoder that outputs videos using the h.264 codec which *is*
patent encumbered (MPEG LA) - and thus not "Open Source" as others are
defining it. Yes, the encoder might be GPLv2 (*), but the codec itself
(which is also a standard BTW) is *NOT* Open Source."

He is distinguishing that there is a patent on the codec but then seems to
say that the codec itself isn't open source because of the patent. As far
as I know a patent has nothing to do with the copyright put on the source
code. I know that some Free Software licenses have stipulations concerning
patents and their enforceability in relation to the copyrighted code(GPLv3)
but that is a subset of the licence itself. To think that the codec
itself(an idea of how something is going to be compressed) can be
copyrighted doesn't work. Different implementations of that idea in code
can be copyrighted. Of course there are encoders and decoders for that
codec that are both free and non-free and the only thing restricting the
free implementation is the patent. But again, the patent doesn't make the
code of the free software implementation any less Free Software or Open
Source(if you prefer).

I think that John does have a point, but I just wanted to suggest that we
try to keep those two issues separate in order to maintain the clarity of
the conversation. If these two things become muddled up then so do the
outgoing conversations in regard to the issues.

Please don't take my tone as harsh if it comes off that way. I'm not out to
attack anyone on this but we'll all be better off if we distance those two
concepts as much as possible.


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Being Free Software and being covered by a patent are two different
> things. By confusing the two matters you're making more downstream
> confusion as a result.
>
> That's like saying that being Free Software and having keys certified
> by the root of trust of a given DRM scheme are two different things. I
> think John has a point. x264 despite being under a Free Software
> license—GPL even—does not come (in all countries) with full freedoms
> one would expect from Free Software under the definition of Free
> Software because there are third-party encumbrances. (Even freedom 0
> fails in some cases! Not due to restrictions imposed by the authors of
> the program, of course.)
>
> (Yes, I’m aware the the FSF’s Free Software Directory lists software
> that implements H.264 as long as the copyright license is a blessed
> one and excludes Firefox, which made a bona fide attempt at avoiding
> the restrictions on software freedom arising from H.264. I personally
> think that’s backwards.)
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>



-- 
/* Free software is a matter of liberty not price.
    Visit www.GNU.org * www.FSF.org * www.trisquel.info */