Will H.264 Codec Support Come To Fedora? Nope.

[jwilliams]

why can't they just use H.264 via ffmpeg and libavcodec?

Can someone explain to me the license for H.264?

I know of several free programs that use H.264 via ffmpeg and libavcodec

So why can't Fedora use it that way, too?

[Gusar]

I know of several free programs that use H.264 via ffmpeg and libavcodec

So why can't Fedora use it that way, too?

They do it by not caring about the legalities. But Fedora can't not care. They (well, RedHat) are big enough that they'd quite possibly get sued.

To address what this "Fedora Video" person wrote... so much incorrect info in there, my head hurts.

[Hamish Wilson]

As a Fedora user, I fully support keeping the base distribution patent free.

Furthermore, I have now gone fully to WebM videos on YouTube and have not touched a proprietary format in a while.

But yes, if I need to play something, I can install RPM Fusion. That way it is my problem when I break the law. That is the only way that makes sense here.

And Fedora seems to still be relevant to me. Maybe I am biased cause I actually use the distribution...

[r1348]

After this pearl of an article, I re-enabled ad-block on Phoronix.

[Prescience500]

Another option for Fedora is to start throwing more money and developers at the new video codec in development by the Xiph Foundation, Daala. It's goal is to not just be better than h.364 but also h.365 when it comes out. I'm sure more manpower could help things alot.

[smitty3268]

After spending time here on Phoronix, it almost seems strange to see such a blatant trolling attempt using good english.

no broken sentences, no out-of-nowhere references to nazis, no words that are completely out of place and you suspect were switched for another that happens to start with the same letter.

not nearly as entertainingly bizarre either. Too bad.

[drag]

Can someone explain to me the license for H.264?

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

Good luck.

I know of several free programs that use H.264 via ffmpeg and libavcodec

So why can't Fedora use it that way, too?

You can. You just have to install the codecs yourself using yum.

[drag]

Another option for Fedora is to start throwing more money and developers at the new video codec in development by the Xiph Foundation, Daala. It's goal is to not just be better than h.364 but also h.365 when it comes out. I'm sure more manpower could help things alot.

Webm is perfectly adequate replacement. When you get into codec comparisons the difference is 99% because of the implementation of the codec rather then the codec itself. Meaning a good Webm encoder can provide much better quality then a average H.264 one can.

The competition is stiff because the open source H.264 encoder, which is x264, is one of the best available _period_. It is top of the line software closed or open source.

The ultimate problem is that Apple is the #1 seller of smartphones and tablets and they absolutely refuse to have their systems support anything other then H.264. Apple, btw, is also a member of MPEG-LA so they make money from patent licensing of that codec.

It really doesn't matter if you have a better codec or not. Compatibility is far and away the most important thing.

[smitty3268]

Webm is perfectly adequate replacement. When you get into codec comparisons the difference is 99% because of the implementation of the codec rather then the codec itself. Meaning a good Webm encoder can provide much better quality then a average H.264 one can.

The competition is stiff because the open source H.264 encoder, which is x264, is one of the best available _period_. It is top of the line software closed or open source.

The ultimate problem is that Apple is the #1 seller of smartphones and tablets and they absolutely refuse to have their systems support anything other then H.264. Apple, btw, is also a member of MPEG-LA so they make money from patent licensing of that codec.

It really doesn't matter if you have a better codec or not. Compatibility is far and away the most important thing.

Yep. Unless Google is willing to drop h.264 support in Chrome/Android it's becoming pretty obvious that no other codec will take it's place, at least in the short term. Google claimed they were going to do this, but it's looking less and less likely all the time. They don't seem willing to abandon it in Android and Apple isn't going to switch to anything else unless they are forced to.

[drag]

Yep. Unless Google is willing to drop h.264 support in Chrome/Android it's becoming pretty obvious that no other codec will take it's place,

I don't see why it's up to Google to disable it in Chrome or what you think they would achieve by doing so.

If webm is going to displace h.264 it will be because it will be easier, cheaper, and most importantly: be better. Better in terms of integration into tools and ease of use as well as offering equal quality.

Breaking your browser and making people not want to use it isn't going to help webm out any.