Canonical licenses H.264 â€“ Theora out for the count? [Updated]

By Joey Sneddon, Published May 4, 2010

Canonical are currently the only Linux company to license H.264/AVC, the patented non-free technology used to compress video and favoured by companies such as Apple & Microsoft for HTML5 Video.

Neither RedHat, makers of Fedora, or Novell, makers of Suse, appear on the list of over 800 licensee’s.

What's interesting is that the rival, if you will, to H.264 is the free and open codec Ogg Theroa which one would naturally assume would be the favoured choice for a Linux distribution's parent to support.

With Canonical putting their weight behind H.264 and already having the most popular desktop Linux distribution this might tip the scales to H264 adoption for HTML5 video on the web.

And does this mean Ubuntu 10.04 LTS users are covered and can install H.264 to their systems without worrying about patent issues?

Update
Mark Shuttleworth has helped clarify the issue: “I believe the licenses he’s referring are purely in support of OEMs in specific cases”

Many, many thanks to Paul who wrote half of this!
Source | theregister

Canonical 'contracting engineering' to Google

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

http://twitter.com/Herr_Gabriel Gabriel Shahzad
Wait…what? Canonical supports software patents… Gets me thinking…

http://dieki.myopenid.com/ Dieki
No, they support success. There’s a difference. :)
They figure that Ubuntu users need to be able to legally use restricted codecs. And they’re willing to let them.
http://dieki.myopenid.com/ Dieki
No, they support success. There’s a difference. :)
They figure that Ubuntu users need to be able to legally use restricted codecs. And they’re willing to let them.
Anonymous
This is less about supporting software patents and more about supporting the user. It currently looks like h.264 will be everywhere on the web in a few years. Not licensing it now would soon result in users no longer being able to watch a lot of web-video.

YourGhost
It wouldnt stop anyone from not being ABLE to watch them.
YourGhost
It wouldnt stop anyone from not being ABLE to watch them.

Anonymous
This is less about supporting software patents and more about supporting the user. It currently looks like h.264 will be everywhere on the web in a few years. Not licensing it now would soon result in users no longer being able to watch a lot of web-video.

Anonymous
This move thoroughly confuses me….also, didn’t Google get behind a completely different codec? They bought out a company for the codec I think
Anonymous
This move thoroughly confuses me….also, didn’t Google get behind a completely different codec? They bought out a company for the codec I think

http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od
Indeed (they bought on2 for their VP8 codec) but they do currently use – and support – h.264 in Chrome, YouTube etc.

Anonymous
Google supports H.264 AND Theora. Chrome is able to decode the two codecs.
It’s pretty sure that Google will release VP8 soon, and they have the power to make it become the new standard. What Canonical is doing now is just getting a poor reputation, by not even following the FSF recommandations…

Anonymous
Yeah go on with the FSF recommendations and miss the web how it’s meant to. Canonical is doing this for the users. Linux users have always had a bad internet experience, but thank’s to Canonical we can have an internet experience equal to Windows users and Mac users.
Theora is inferior to h.264 that’s why they lost.

Anonymous
Yes Theora is inferior but it’s a little pointless when Google are about to release a free one that easilyy rivals it. (The current Theora was old, that the only real reason it was behind.)
h264 hasn’t won yet. If he must, licence it when it’s over, when they have already won. At least then they don’t really lose cred.

Anonymous
Google supports H.264 AND Theora. Chrome is able to decode the two codecs.
It’s pretty sure that Google will release VP8 soon, and they have the power to make it become the new standard. What Canonical is doing now is just getting a poor reputation, by not even following the FSF recommandations…

http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od
Indeed (they bought on2 for their VP8 codec) but they do currently use – and support – h.264 in Chrome, YouTube etc.

Jimbo
On May 19th Google is widely expected to open up the codec they just bought, which will single handedly negate any future HTML5 video codec issues.
In the mean time is it a bad thing that Canonical allows its users to support the most popular file formats? Nope.

TheGhostOfYou
If Canonical actually DID allow its users to support the most popular file formats, then it wouldnt be bad, but the fact is they DONT. One flake does not a blizzard make.
TheGhostOfYou
If Canonical actually DID allow its users to support the most popular file formats, then it wouldnt be bad, but the fact is they DONT. One flake does not a blizzard make.
DCK
Google’s VP8 open sourcing is too late. H.264 has already won. Apple and Microsoft won’t back down their exclusive support for H.264. Apple is especially is bad here, since H.264 is their IP and they have hardware acceleration for it on the iPhone.
I think it’s a shame, too, and I hope that VP8 can reconquer the -market as .png reconquered .gif for the tag.

Bob Hazard
Agreed. The reason h264 has momentum is hardware support. The same reason all those cheap MP3 players form China don’t support OGG, because the MP3 decoding happens in hardware and anything else canes the battery or requires beefy CPU.
I still have high hopes for VP8. YouTube is so big it still has potential to move the industry.

http://dieki.myopenid.com/ Dieki
I laughed when I read that. Most of the cheap MP3 players from China do support OGG; apparently they all run the same firmware on basically identical hardware, so only one company – the manufacturer of the chips that all the other companies make players out of – had to support Vorbis.

Bob Hazard
I agree that they mostly have the same decoding chips, which is why they all seem to support RMVB, noone would go to the expense of adding that but it seems to come along with the chip
I don’t know where you shop but it is common consensus that it is harder to find ogg hardware support than not.

http://dieki.myopenid.com/ Dieki
I laughed when I read that. Most of the cheap MP3 players from China do support OGG; apparently they all run the same firmware on basically identical hardware, so only one company – the manufacturer of the chips that all the other companies make players out of – had to support Vorbis.

Bob Hazard
Agreed. The reason h264 has momentum is hardware support. The same reason all those cheap MP3 players form China don’t support OGG, because the MP3 decoding happens in hardware and anything else canes the battery or requires beefy CPU.
I still have high hopes for VP8. YouTube is so big it still has potential to move the industry.
Jimbo
“Google’s VP8 open sourcing is too late. H.264 has already won.”
All it takes is for Google to aggressively promote VP8 as the preferred codec on youtube and suddenly its a different landscape.
Jimbo
“Google’s VP8 open sourcing is too late. H.264 has already won.”
All it takes is for Google to aggressively promote VP8 as the preferred codec on youtube and suddenly its a different landscape.
Anonymous
1 word: Youtube. End of “war of formats”, with H.264 having lost…
pt
They havben’t won Google controls youtube, they can assert their power by only showing Videos using VP8.
Youtube was a great strategic buy for them.
anon e moose
“Apple is especially is bad here, since H.264 is their IP”
That’s rather an exaggeration. There are over 1000 patents in the H.264 patent pool. A single one of those patents belongs to Apple.

DCK
Google’s VP8 open sourcing is too late. H.264 has already won. Apple and Microsoft won’t back down their exclusive support for H.264. Apple is especially is bad here, since H.264 is their IP and they have hardware acceleration for it on the iPhone.
I think it’s a shame, too, and I hope that VP8 can reconquer the -market as .png reconquered .gif for the tag.
dnhxd
Ever heard of VC-1. It’s a codec developed by Microsoft. They made it an SMPTE standard and were going to give it away royalty free to anyone who wants it. Some weeks after the standard was published 17 companies got in touch with Microsoft because VC-1 violated their patents. These days you can buy a license to use VC-1 from the MPEG-LA.
dnhxd
Ever heard of VC-1. It’s a codec developed by Microsoft. They made it an SMPTE standard and were going to give it away royalty free to anyone who wants it. Some weeks after the standard was published 17 companies got in touch with Microsoft because VC-1 violated their patents. These days you can buy a license to use VC-1 from the MPEG-LA.

Jimbo
On May 19th Google is widely expected to open up the codec they just bought, which will single handedly negate any future HTML5 video codec issues.
In the mean time is it a bad thing that Canonical allows its users to support the most popular file formats? Nope.
http://en.myfreeweb.ru/ MyFreeWeb
Â«open codec Theroa which oneÂ»
TheORa.
http://en.myfreeweb.ru/ MyFreeWeb
Â«open codec Theroa which oneÂ»
TheORa.
Hubert Teo
That’s really weird if you think in terms of licensing and Ubuntu’s open source direction, but if you look at it from another angle, this move will definitely be beneficial to Ubuntu and Canonical in the long run. H.264, while less open and free than I would have liked, is still one of the most used and most common high-quality high-performance codecs out there. Theora is just as good, but is just less popular in the real world.
So this move might just give users another reason to use Ubuntu. Yay for that.
P.S. Ogg Theora, not Theroa. That’s really weird if you think in terms of licensing and Ubuntu’s open source direction, but if you look at it from another angle, this move will definitely be beneficial to Ubuntu and Canonical in the long run. H.264, while less open and free than I would have liked, is still one of the most used and most common high-quality high-performance codecs out there. Theora is just as good, but is just less popular in the real world.
So this move might just give users another reason to use Ubuntu. Yay for that.
P.S. Ogg Theora, not Theroa.
Hubert Teo
That’s really weird if you think in terms of licensing and Ubuntu’s open source direction, but if you look at it from another angle, this move will definitely be beneficial to Ubuntu and Canonical in the long run. H.264, while less open and free than I would have liked, is still one of the most used and most common high-quality high-performance codecs out there. Theora is just as good, but is just less popular in the real world.
So this move might just give users another reason to use Ubuntu. Yay for that.
P.S. Ogg Theora, not Theroa. That’s really weird if you think in terms of licensing and Ubuntu’s open source direction, but if you look at it from another angle, this move will definitely be beneficial to Ubuntu and Canonical in the long run. H.264, while less open and free than I would have liked, is still one of the most used and most common high-quality high-performance codecs out there. Theora is just as good, but is just less popular in the real world.
So this move might just give users another reason to use Ubuntu. Yay for that.
P.S. Ogg Theora, not Theroa.
Anonymous
Its more complicated than this. I understand why Canonical is doing it.
It looks like youre going to be screwed if you dont have the h.264 codec and want to browse the web in about a year. OGG Theora lost this fight quite a while ago.
This way gstreamer will have h.264-support, and all browsers (like Firefox) can just call on gstreamer to do the video-work. This is better than having Firefox not supporting h.264.
And as long as Google releases VP8 openly before 2016 (when the license for h.264 will be reworked, probably cost a lot more), there will be no problem.
Google alone is big enough to set the new standard (what people use, not the actual standard) in the video codec fight.
EDIT: and yes, this probably means that you Americans dont have to worry about patents when playing h.264-videos in Ubuntu.

http://twitter.com/mglbranco Miguel Branco
Yes Americans and Europeans and everybody else, you MUST be afraid of h.264 for nasty nasty thing like this: http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
http://twitter.com/mglbranco Miguel Branco
Yes Americans and Europeans and everybody else, you MUST be afraid of h.264 for nasty nasty thing like this: http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
Anonymous
I’m glad you understand the situation. It makes a change from people jumping onto the “OMG NO MORE FREEDOM! CANONICAL ARE EVIL!” bandwagon.

http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od
I hope the post didn’t come across that way…

Anonymous
Not at all. My comment was aimed more at comments in this post.

Anonymous
Sry, I meant “I can understand”.

Anonymous
Its more complicated than this. I understand why Canonical is doing it.
It looks like youre going to be screwed if you dont have the h.264 codec and want to browse the web in about a year. OGG Theora lost this fight quite a while ago.
This way gstreamer will have h.264-support, and all browsers (like Firefox) can just call on gstreamer to do the video-work. This is better than having Firefox not supporting h.264.
And as long as Google releases VP8 openly before 2016 (when the license for h.264 will be reworked, probably cost a lot more), there will be no problem.
Google alone is big enough to set the new standard (what people use, not the actual standard) in the video codec fight.
EDIT: and yes, this probably means that you Americans dont have to worry about patents when playing h.264-videos in Ubuntu.
Anonymous
HOORAY!
More non-Free content in Ubuntu!
This can only be a good thing!
/fanboi
Anonymous
HOORAY!
More non-Free content in Ubuntu!
This can only be a good thing!
/fanboi
http://itbcn8world.spaces.live.com itbcn8
Smart move… I don’t have anything against Canonical getting in bed with licenses as long as Ubuntu remains free.

Anonymous
Except that Ubuntu promotes Free and Open Source software. It doesn’t bode well for Linux that they are supporting non-free codecs. Come on, this is like Novell paying Microsoft to leave them alone. I think it’s ok that they are creating Moonlight – they felt they had to, but paying MSFT just makes it look bad for the rest of Linux distros – it wasn’t a choice they could make while not affecting other distros.
Google releasing V8 neutralizes the need for h264. It hasn’t won yet.

http://itbcn8world.spaces.live.com itbcn8
Smart move… I don’t have anything against Canonical getting in bed with licenses as long as Ubuntu remains free.
http://twitter.com/mglbranco Miguel Branco
Again, this is a great lose for free software, of yet unknown consequences. The same applies to the ubuntu store being mp3 only. I remind you that MPGE-LA has said that people is gonna be require to pay for content reproduced with the codec if the distributor has not paid for it, whether they are aware of the fact or not.
http://twitter.com/mglbranco Miguel Branco
Again, this is a great lose for free software, of yet unknown consequences. The same applies to the ubuntu store being mp3 only. I remind you that MPGE-LA has said that people is gonna be require to pay for content reproduced with the codec if the distributor has not paid for it, whether they are aware of the fact or not.
Yi Sun-sin
I would like to say :
OMFG TROLLFEST !!!!

aL
dude, did u notice u become a troll? when did this happen to you? you used to be cool

Yi Sun-sin
Err, I guess I was a troll right from the beginning, wasn’t I ?

Yi Sun-sin
I would like to say :
OMFG TROLLFEST !!!!
Stephan
Even with H.264 being the more popular format, I think this is totally wrong for somebody who is supposed to support open formats. The patent-holders can and will definitely make every user pay someday, as soon as most everybody is using it. Does nobody care or are you all so naive to think that everything will come out good? It won’t.

http://openid-provider.appspot.com/mark_c@markecurtis.com Merk
I never understood the thought process that in order to support open, you had to not support closed. Why can’t Canonical (or any person/company) do both?

http://sloshy.livejournal.com/ Ryan Peters
To quote The Bible:
“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” – Rev. 3:16, KJV
The point is that by supporting both, Canonical is a hypocrite. You can’t support freedom and non-freedom at the same time. You can’t be hot or cold at the same time. It doesn’t make sense and it’s unclear what you stand for (in this case it looks more like they stand for profiting instead of freedom). Canonical, in making this decision, is lukewarm. Freedom-hating people won’t like how Canonical supports Free Software, and freedom-loving people won’t like how canonical supports H.264/closed/non-free software. Canonical needs to pick a side instead of trying to make it seem like they’re on both sides.
Who ever said The Bible wasn’t relevant today? ;)
(PS this isn’t an argument about functionality. If it was, I would COMPLETELY agree with you. Since that’s not the case, and it’s an argument about freedom, then I disagree).

http://openid-provider.appspot.com/mark_c@markecurtis.com Merk
So I guess for someone to support freedom (in the law sense), one must be an anarchist. For if one supports some laws, then they don’t truly support being free and are therefore a hypocrit

http://sloshy.livejournal.com/ Ryan Peters
There are different degrees of freedom and different definitions of freedom as well. Laws exist because there are certain things that are unfair, unjust, and downright wrong that should not be allowed. The “freedom to harm someone”, for example, is a bad thing because harm is naturally a bad thing. The “freedom to create, share, and remix”, however, is a good thing because it harms absolutely nobody. The MPEG-LA are greedy and don’t allow anyone to do anything with their codec without their permission, and thus hate this good kind of freedom. Fair Use has allowed the companies that rely on it to make trillions of dollars without harming anyone. Restrictions like what the MPEG-LA forces on users of their codecs are destructive and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Anonymous
GPL-type licences are freedom. BSD-type licences are absolute freedom. There are pluses and minuses to using either. Please don’t be as ignorant as Apple fans.

Anonymous
People like you are the reason I stopped using Linux.

Anonymous
Doesn’t seem like a smart move if that’s the reason, lol

http://openid-provider.appspot.com/mark_c@markecurtis.com Merk
I never understood the thought process that in order to support open, you had to not support closed. Why can’t Canonical (or any person/company) do both?

Stephan
Even with H.264 being the more popular format, I think this is totally wrong for somebody who is supposed to support open formats. The patent-holders can and will definitely make every user pay someday, as soon as most everybody is using it. Does nobody care or are you all so naive to think that everything will come out good? It won’t.
http://sloshy.livejournal.com/ Ryan Peters
It seems Ubuntu doesn’t care much for Free Software after all. You can say that this is “for the users” but you’re wrong. Ubuntu was originally created as “Linux for Human Beings”. They loved free software and they still contribute to it. However, they aren’t helping our culture or the users one bit by licensing H.264 for Ubuntu. H.264 is a patented codec which makes it illegal for anyone to make a free software implementation of the spec, to sell anything related to it, and to basically do *anything* relating to it without the MPEG-LA’s permission. Yes people will be able to “play” videos in this format, but what about “create”? “Remix”? “Study”? They can’t! For the record you CANNOT have a free (as in the FSF sense of the word) H.264 implementation and if you license the codec, you HAVE to use closed binaries. No they CAN’T just have all of the gstreamer codecs pre-installed because the MPEG-LA doesn’t allow that. If that was the case then Firefox would have implemented H.264 a long time ago; they can’t, however, because they actually care about being Free.
As a Free Software/Culture advocate, I can’t recommend Ubuntu to anyone again after this. So much for “Linux For Human Beings”. Now it is “Leeching Off Of The Free Software Community For Our Commercial Benefit”. If they truly cared about being free, they could have made a difference. Blending in with the crowds is never a good idea, especially if our culture’s at stake.

Anonymous
^ That’s why I don’t like the FSF. They say love freedom and all, but they only criticize and impose their ways onto others. Canonical is here for the money and success. They do believe in free software and contribute, but when free software isn’t the answer, they have to do things like this in order to give us a better internet experience.
And Theora already lost, live with that.

http://sloshy.livejournal.com/ Ryan Peters
Your definition of “better internet experience” probably isn’t the same as mine then. H.264 is very, very restrictive. People can watch videos made with the codec because of this deal, but they still cannot edit, create, or sell videos in that codec without the explicit permission of the MPEG-LA. Once everybody is using the codec (we’re almost there unfortunately) then we’ll be paying license fees and patent fees left and right for doing *anything* with the codec. To me, that does not sound like a better internet experience at all.

Anonymous
Everyone’s definition is different. I know I won’t be paying crap. I don’t create, edit etc. I just consume media like most people.
I play mp3s and DVDs without paying anyway.

RZ
I quite agree.. for 1 billion people who watch a video, there may be just a couple of folks who would want to edit, create and playing with codecs. Ubuntu is for all of us -human beings- Thanks Canonical to be a wise and modern company!
Utus
Sure! Talk about later in… let’s see, a couple of releases. Let see about their developers and maintainers. They will beg to get back to Debian project.

http://sloshy.livejournal.com/ Ryan Peters
It seems Ubuntu doesn’t care much for Free Software after all. You can say that this is “for the users” but you’re wrong. Ubuntu was originally created as “Linux for Human Beings”. They loved free software and they still contribute to it. However, they aren’t helping our culture or the users one bit by licensing H.264 for Ubuntu. H.264 is a patented codec which makes it illegal for anyone to make a free software implementation of the spec, to sell anything related to it, and to basically do *anything* relating to it without the MPEG-LA’s permission. Yes people will be able to “play” videos in this format, but what about “create”? “Remix”? “Study”? They can’t! For the record you CANNOT have a free (as in the FSF sense of the word) H.264 implementation and if you license the codec, you HAVE to use closed binaries. No they CAN’T just have all of the gstreamer codecs pre-installed because the MPEG-LA doesn’t allow that. If that was the case then Firefox would have implemented H.264 a long time ago; they can’t, however, because they actually care about being Free.
As a Free Software/Culture advocate, I can’t recommend Ubuntu to anyone again after this. So much for “Linux For Human Beings”. Now it is “Leeching Off Of The Free Software Community For Our Commercial Benefit”. If they truly cared about being free, they could have made a difference. Blending in with the crowds is never a good idea, especially if our culture’s at stake.
anon
this is why there is x264…http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html
Johny
ZOMG! Mark ShuttleJobs is taking my freedoms away!!!1! Panic!!
Carlf
Include the restricted extras by default now. Make it regular java not openjdk. Make wireless work from the start.

http://kshegzyaj.deviantart.com Harno Ranaivo
As far as I know, even though you can install restricted-extras for free, they are not allowed to include it for free. You have to install them by yourself, if they were to be distributed included with Ubuntu, someone would have to pay (canonical, and/or the user).
It’s one of the differences between the Mandriva versions, the sold one includes mp3 and such things.

Yfrwlf
I believe I stand for everyone with a brain everywhere when I say: screw patents, and up yours patent laws, especially those of the software/math/stupid variety.
Canonical should be helping to fight them, not encourage them.

http://openid-provider.appspot.com/mark_c@markecurtis.com Merk
While I agree that software patent laws are stupid (in the US anyway). I don’t see how Canonical not supporting h.264 would be fighting the laws

Yfrwlf
You’re right, they should use it but not pay them money for it, that would be a better resistance. :D

Anonymous
I hope this article sheds some light in the issue:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
EDIT: More stuff @ OSnews
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
http://kshegzyaj.deviantart.com Harno Ranaivo
And what about x264 ? Is h.264 more efficient than x264 (and that would be the reason why Canonical licenses h.264) ?
http://mardahbeatz.com beats for sale
vs8 thanks for the link

Canonical licenses H.264 â€“ Theora out for the count? [Updated]

Like us on Facebook!

Latest Comments

Our Most Popular Tweets

Canonical licenses H.264 â€“ Theora out for the count? [Updated]

Most Read This Week

Like us on Facebook!

Latest Comments

Our Most Popular Tweets