From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:19:55 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Ny post. X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/8dccd02bdf7abd5dac935b1f27f0316e5b048528?ds=sidebyside Ny post. --- diff --git a/blog/data/2010-12-25-ogg-theora.txt b/blog/data/2010-12-25-ogg-theora.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ebb738e5b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/data/2010-12-25-ogg-theora.txt @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +Title: Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard? +Tags: english, standard, video +Date: 2010-12-25 20:20 + +

The +Digistan definition of a free and open standard reads like this:

+ +
+ +

The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard +as follows:

+ +
    + +
  1. A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages +in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to +freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
    2. + +
  2. The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit +organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an +open decision-making procedure available to all interested +parties.
    3. + +
  3. The standard has been published and the standard specification +document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy, +distribute, and use it freely.
    4. + +
  4. The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made +irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
    5. + +
  5. There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
    6. + +
+ +

The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be +measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of +products based on the standard.

+
+ +

For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free +and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short +writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the +topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list +in +July 2009, for those that want to see some background information. +According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list +the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.

+ +

Free from vendor capture?

+ +

As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the +Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the +Xiph foundation is such vendor, but +given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal +making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not +obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph +foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who +control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I've +been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not +seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor +where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an +external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know +it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the +specification. But it seem unlikely.

+ +

Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?

+ +

Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages +claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is +controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any +documentation indicating this.

+ +

According to +a report +prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian +government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and +the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory. +Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the +report is correct.

+ +

Specification freely available?

+ +

The specification for the Ogg +container format and both the +Vorbis and +Theora codeces are available on +the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification: + +

+ +Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora] +specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate +capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve +the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify +specification compliance. + +
+ +

The Ogg container format is specified in IETF +RFC 3533, and +this is the term:

+ +

+ +

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to +others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it +or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and +distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, +provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are +included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this +document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing +the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other +Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing +Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined +in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to +translate it into languages other than English.

+ +

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be +revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

+
+ +

All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an +this term seem to be fulfilled.

+ +

Royalty-free?

+ +

There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg +Theora format. +MPEG-LA +and +Steve +Jobs in Apple claim to know about some patent claims against the +Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe them. Both Opera +Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into this and decided +to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers without paying any +royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and Steve Jobs seem more +like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec than any real problem +with Ogg Theora. + +

No constraints on re-use?

+ +

I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.

+ +

Conclusion

+ +

3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2 +depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the +background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is +safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it +would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify +this.