YouTube goes free

At last, YouTube will be broadcasting videos in a free format, WebM, consisting of the VP8 video codec plus the Vorbis audio codec in a Matroska container. Google has released their newly acquired VP8 implementation as free software, as well as granted a worldwide, royalty-free patent licence for anyone wishing to implement the specification. This enables browsers such as Mozilla Firefox, which didn't support the h.264 codec due to patent issues, to include native support for WebM to play back YouTube videos using the HTML5 specification.

This is the first time that YouTube video will be able to be played back using free (both from copyright and patent restrictions) software. I must applaud Google for taking this great step to freedom on the web, and hope that they will continue along this path in the future. I also hope that other video hosting websites will follow suit, by adopting either WebM or some other free video format.

This is great news not only for YouTube users, but for the web as a whole, which now has a precedent set for the use of free media formats by a mainstream provider.

Further reading:
The WebM Project FAQ
Free Software Foundation statement on WebM and VP8

That's awesome. Free at last!

Also, everything else google does is still evil, right steve?

Also, everything else google does is still evil, right steve?

I don't like some of the things Google has done, but that doesn't mean that "everything else" they do is necessarily evil.

Give us us free!

Give us us free!

Isnt this low content?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 20, 2010, 11:05:01 AM

Give us us free!

Isnt this low content?

This is the LOWER fora.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 20, 2010, 11:05:01 AM

Give us us free!

Isnt this low content?

Banned for memberating.

Also, this is very good news.

I will only give a damn if there is a change in quality of the site.

I will only give a damn if there is a change in quality of the site.

Maybe they could put some kind of a comment filter in.  It could automatically screen out comments that include phrases like "kick your ass", "I can bench-press", etc.

Another step in the death of flash.

Another step in the death of flash.

Flash is already dead to anyone who cares about their freedom.

Lol, check out this funny video, Parsifal. http://www.weebls-stuff.com/onthemoon/On+The+Moon+ep.17/

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 01:07:04 AM

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.

If the masses were using an open-source social network like the Diaspora software (still in development), there would have been no centralized point of control and therefore no potential for abuse.

Quote from: Johannes on May 20, 2010, 03:23:15 PM

Another step in the death of flash.

Flash is already dead to anyone who cares about their freedom.

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 21, 2010, 11:44:01 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 01:07:04 AM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.

If the masses were using an open-source social network like the Diaspora software (still in development), there would have been no centralized point of control and therefore no potential for abuse.

Why?  Just because there's no central point of control doesn't mean someone can't control all points or sell their point.

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

It isn't free; it costs you the rights you forfeit when you agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA, including the right to control the software you use.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

It isn't free; it costs you the rights you forfeit when you agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA, including the right to control the software you use.

Who cares?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

It isn't free; it costs you the rights you forfeit when you agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA, including the right to control the software you use.

What rights?
It's designed to play all adobe flash items.  I use it to play all adobe flash items with no restrictions. 

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between using Adobe Flash Player when it's free and Adobe Flash Player when it's free AND open source is nothing.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 21, 2010, 12:36:29 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

It isn't free; it costs you the rights you forfeit when you agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA, including the right to control the software you use.

What rights?
It's designed to play all adobe flash items.  I use it to play all adobe flash items with no restrictions. 

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between using Adobe Flash Player when it's free and Adobe Flash Player when it's free AND open source is nothing.

You have no idea what the software is really doing and you are not free to modify it or redistribute it.

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 11:56:23 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 21, 2010, 11:44:01 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 01:07:04 AM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.

If the masses were using an open-source social network like the Diaspora software (still in development), there would have been no centralized point of control and therefore no potential for abuse.

Why?  Just because there's no central point of control doesn't mean someone can't control all points or sell their point.

How would someone control all points if the system is decentralized? Sure, people can sell their point, but the important thing is that they can't sell other people's point (what Facebook is doing by releasing tons of personal info to advertisers).

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:59:32 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 21, 2010, 12:36:29 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

It isn't free; it costs you the rights you forfeit when you agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA, including the right to control the software you use.

What rights?
It's designed to play all adobe flash items.  I use it to play all adobe flash items with no restrictions. 

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between using Adobe Flash Player when it's free and Adobe Flash Player when it's free AND open source is nothing.

You have no idea what the software is really doing and you are not free to modify it or redistribute it.

I also can't photocopy my favorite book and redistribute that either.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:59:32 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 21, 2010, 12:36:29 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

It isn't free; it costs you the rights you forfeit when you agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA, including the right to control the software you use.

What rights?
It's designed to play all adobe flash items.  I use it to play all adobe flash items with no restrictions. 

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between using Adobe Flash Player when it's free and Adobe Flash Player when it's free AND open source is nothing.

You have no idea what the software is really doing and you are not free to modify it or redistribute it.

If it's free I have no idea what it's doing unless I go into the code line by line and look, which I'm not going to do.  And why would I want to modify a perfectly good program? 

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 11:56:23 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 21, 2010, 11:44:01 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 01:07:04 AM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.

If the masses were using an open-source social network like the Diaspora software (still in development), there would have been no centralized point of control and therefore no potential for abuse.

Why?  Just because there's no central point of control doesn't mean someone can't control all points or sell their point.

How would someone control all points if the system is decentralized? Sure, people can sell their point, but the important thing is that they can't sell other people's point (what Facebook is doing by releasing tons of personal info to advertisers).

Worms are very good at doing that.  All it takes is a user who isn't security minded and clicks on things they shouldn't.  This, by the way, is why Linux and Windows don't have a large overlapping user base; Those who want it easy aren't usually security minded. 

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 02:21:41 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 11:56:23 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 21, 2010, 11:44:01 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on May 21, 2010, 01:07:04 AM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.

If the masses were using an open-source social network like the Diaspora software (still in development), there would have been no centralized point of control and therefore no potential for abuse.

Why?  Just because there's no central point of control doesn't mean someone can't control all points or sell their point.

How would someone control all points if the system is decentralized? Sure, people can sell their point, but the important thing is that they can't sell other people's point (what Facebook is doing by releasing tons of personal info to advertisers).

Worms are very good at doing that.  All it takes is a user who isn't security minded and clicks on things they shouldn't.  This, by the way, is why Linux and Windows don't have a large overlapping user base; Those who want it easy aren't usually security minded. 

The point is, Facebook hijacks your personal information deliberately. It's not a worm, it's systematic and built into the network by design.

Quote from: Johannes on May 21, 2010, 02:12:44 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:59:32 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 21, 2010, 12:36:29 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 12:27:29 PM

Why?  The player is free and it works for me.

It isn't free; it costs you the rights you forfeit when you agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA, including the right to control the software you use.

What rights?
It's designed to play all adobe flash items.  I use it to play all adobe flash items with no restrictions. 

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between using Adobe Flash Player when it's free and Adobe Flash Player when it's free AND open source is nothing.

You have no idea what the software is really doing and you are not free to modify it or redistribute it.

I also can't photocopy my favorite book and redistribute that either.

You know what your book is doing. You are free to modify your book.

What rights?
It's designed to play all adobe flash items.  I use it to play all adobe flash items with no restrictions.

I gave an example of one. Unfortunately, I have not read the Flash EULA, so I don't know the full set of rights you give up by using it.

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between using Adobe Flash Player when it's free and Adobe Flash Player when it's free AND open source is nothing.

I agree; however, it has the problem that it is neither free nor open source.

I also can't photocopy my favorite book and redistribute that either.

That is, itself, a related problem. If current trends in copyright law continue, soon we'll see public libraries being made illegal.

If it's free I have no idea what it's doing unless I go into the code line by line and look, which I'm not going to do.  And why would I want to modify a perfectly good program?

The right to modify software is much like the right to sue for damages; you typically don't want to do it, and unless you have expertise in the relevant field you'll probably never do it yourself, but it's never good to have the right to hire someone (a lawyer or a programmer) to do it taken away from you. In the case of software, individuals typically don't hire programmers to modify software, but they benefit from the peer review process that takes place as part of development. Good software is like good science; free to share, and free for anyone to improve upon.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:59:32 PM

What rights?
It's designed to play all adobe flash items.  I use it to play all adobe flash items with no restrictions.

I gave an example of one. Unfortunately, I have not read the Flash EULA, so I don't know the full set of rights you give up by using it.

Meh, probably mostly "you can't modify this, you can't steal it, you can't claim it as your own, you can't use it to hack people, ect..."

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:59:32 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between using Adobe Flash Player when it's free and Adobe Flash Player when it's free AND open source is nothing.

I agree; however, it has the problem that it is neither free nor open source.

Not a problem for me.  And since I'm the user, that's all that matters to me.
[/quote]

Quote from: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 02:27:28 PM

If it's free I have no idea what it's doing unless I go into the code line by line and look, which I'm not going to do.  And why would I want to modify a perfectly good program?

The right to modify software is much like the right to sue for damages; you typically don't want to do it, and unless you have expertise in the relevant field you'll probably never do it yourself, but it's never good to have the right to hire someone (a lawyer or a programmer) to do it taken away from you. In the case of software, individuals typically don't hire programmers to modify software, but they benefit from the peer review process that takes place as part of development. Good software is like good science; free to share, and free for anyone to improve upon.

Isn't that what Beta Testing is for?  Peer review?  And bug reports?  And customer service?
Just because you don't have an army of programmers examining your code doesn't mean it's not being evaluated.

Also, scientists are often funded by people who can see a profit in the application of science. (ie. technology).  Profit results in more funding.

If all software was open source, it would be like Linux:
Lots of Variations(not the kernal but you know what I mean) that crash very very easily.

Meh, probably mostly "you can't modify this, you can't steal it, you can't claim it as your own, you can't use it to hack people, ect..."

You can't steal any software, because software can't be owned. Also, people can't be hacked; what you are probably referring to is cracking, often misrepresented in mainstream media as "hacking".

Not a problem for me.  And since I'm the user, that's all that matters to me.

Of course, you have the right to use non-free software if you choose. I would just rather you didn't claim it to be free when doing so.

Isn't that what Beta Testing is for?  Peer review?  And bug reports?  And customer service?
Just because you don't have an army of programmers examining your code doesn't mean it's not being evaluated.

The key word we're looking at here is "peer". Proprietary software testers and developers are not peers, because they don't have equal rights to the software. A more appropriate term would be "minion testing", which has a fundamentally different outcome because the testers can't see the whole picture, only what the developers want them to see.

Also, scientists are often funded by people who can see a profit in the application of science. (ie. technology).  Profit results in more funding.

While I agree with this, I also fail to see what relevance it has to the conversation.

If all software was open source, it would be like Linux:
Lots of Variations(not the kernal but you know what I mean) that crash very very easily.

You forgot to finish that sentence: "... as well as lots of variations that can run for years without a glitch." In any case, this isn't true, because typically what happens is that a program only gets forked when someone is really unhappy with the current direction it's taking, and then there will be a giant flame war and everyone will end up switching to one of the forks and the other one dies. It's very rare that you get a successful split with enough users to maintain both projects independently. GNU+Linux distributions work slightly differently because they're not programs per se, but collections of programs designed to work together (with varying degrees of success at this aim).

software can't be owned.

lolwat?

If I make a program (software), it is mine.