Hi malware fighters,
It is also good to know what is the controversy in the background between Mozilla and the other parties about:
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/This is what plays and we are about to make the same mistakes as with Flash, IE etc. etc.
Dirac is also free of patents, functions equally or in some ways better than H.264 does.
It is being used in the broadcast-scene under the VC-codec.
Why Fx and Google are having problems about the implementation when a solution is already there?
And also theora is a solution to be implemented.
h.264 and Dirac weigh rather heavy as codecs, one should have quite some CPU to run it.
Dirac runs under GPU and the Schrodinger impelementation, is the thing for CPU platforms,
and quality wise Theora is no rival for Dirac, also because it is free of patents.
Dirac will "blow" Theora away...
Open source is not bad, but here it all is about licence-fees, and who pays these...
and these fees, 5 million $ on an annual basis,
are being paid for their users by Microsoft, Google and especially Apple in this case.
Like PNG and JPEG for pictures, there are aslo free solutions for video,
but now users, developers and content-makers alike are forced to pay for such a basic implementation,
So Theora and Dirac to be used in browsers, and if they do not support these,
use the well-known Java-player. Simple and transparent.
Who has the bigger problem here MPEG-LA or Mozilla.
Will they offer Mozilla a free licence to maintain their monopoly position.
But to make MS use Theora 1.1. for video is a difficult tasks for
firms like MS, Opera and Apple alike, all with their fear of patents,
won't switch to open standards.
But there is something quite different here, one could choose the
closed format to create a monopoly.
x264 namely is a GPL code build of exactly the same H.264 codec.
But H.264 is patent-encumbered and cannot be used because it
does not meet the DSFG and therefore cannot be included in
Debian. x264 is completely free and open,
but another problem here could be that technology used there has related patents.
Then the HTML 5 spec could have solved this with the Video tag
properties for an opt-in download for a codec.
But that is not for us, the security aware, because it would mean a royal road in for malware....
So Mozilla does not agree with the video-standard choice of the
other major players, and they could have had a good reason for that,
Logos and other so enthusiastically relate here the launch of this,
but are they aware of the implications, and do they really think
they would be as enthusiastic as this means the same monopoly only for another holder?
and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010
polonus