h.264 error

[Pixel]

The solution is simply is to support System Codecs which avoids ALL issues with copyright/licensing.

Which would create Codec hell.

[_Alexander]

With <video> elements playing via Direct Show filters it's almost impossible to support things like 3D transforms, SVG effects or whatever a web designer might want to do, making 3rd party codecs second class citizens on the web. Hardware accelerated video is even worse when it comes to this.

Finally, h.264 on the Hi10P profile is unlikely to be widely supported. ASIC support is not here and will not be for the foreseeable future, if ever. Currently the only niche it serves is the anime fansubbing community, where it's used as a shortcut for best gradient quality instead of correct encoder tuning.

IE9 provides true hardware acceleration for h264 video, so it Firefox can do the same too. EDIT: Then again, Firefox managed to use Direct2D in such a way that it becomes slower... so, not so optimistic.

10-bit h264 makes sense quality/compression ratio wise - it makes no sense otherwise due to lack of hardware acceleration, poor support, and main consumers being pirates.

The solution is simply is to support System Codecs which avoids ALL issues with copyright/licensing.

Which would create Codec hell.

Not if you limit it to FFDSHOW and System provided codecs - which essentially is all you need anyway.

[NoNameReally]

(Mozilla has the funds but does not support h.264 for ideological reasons I mostly agree with)

By their own license agreement, Mozilla is required to forever keep Firefox as open source software. To my understanding. Since H264 cannot be distributed as open source, it cannot be part of Firefox.

The end.

[ferongr]

H264 cannot be distributed as open source

Yes it can. It's an open, documented format. One of the most popular h.264 encoders, x264 is Free Software.

[_Alexander]

^ MPC:HC, VLC, FFSHOW, DIX H264

But, bundling h264 decoder is needless bloat.

Mozilla needs to simple do the following,
- Add support for system-wide codecs
- White-list OS provided codecs and FFDSHOW
- Remove codecs that Mozilla already bundles with Firefox

[StyleThing]

everrrryone knows what mozilla needs to do, and how to do it properly, of course it is...
close this, I smell holywar about h264 coming

[LoudNoise]

Sorry, no holy wars here. Please continue.

[404FNF]

I DIDNOT UNDERSTAND ANY THING WRITTEN IN THE REPLIES , DOES ANYONE SPEAK NORMAL ENGLISH HERE?

[malliz]

Well for a start don't use all caps it will get you ignored pretty fast. It is considered to be shouting and rude on all forums.

[404FNF]

oh sorry i did not know that , i am extremely sorry , i am just wondering what they are talking about

[Omega X]

Here's some simple and very normal english:

Firefox does not support h.264. It will not support h.264 because of royalties. That includes nightiles.

If you have a problem with VLC, then please contact VideoLAN for support.

[404FNF]

thank you very much

[squall_leonhart]

There is or was a plugin from Divx Networks to support the video tag with their player not sure though if that works with youtube HTML5 also it's mostly on ice (needs to be updated to much effort), these 3rd party solutions though are problematic if they don't evolve with the base browser so a native implementation is always the better thing.

i have a bug open to have that extension blocked because it removes any custom toolbar everytime it is enabled, disabled and updated

[NoNameReally]

H264 cannot be distributed as open source

Yes it can. It's an open, documented format. One of the most popular h.264 encoders, x264 is Free Software.

I'm not gonna argue because I'm not as sure as you seem to be, but I believe there is some incompatibility between the Mozilla Tri-License and the codec's license. And even if Firefox changed its license (again), I'd go for something like GPL and the incompatibilities would still be there. It's not that it's impossible to release as open source per se, it's that it's impossible to work as open source. As if you could theoretically make a lawyer out of a cadaver, but he would never be one, really.

[ferongr]

I'm not gonna argue because I'm not as sure as you seem to be, but I believe there is some incompatibility between the Mozilla Tri-License and the codec's license. And even if Firefox changed its license (again), I'd go for something like GPL and the incompatibilities would still be there. It's not that it's impossible to release as open source per se, it's that it's impossible to work as open source. As if you could theoretically make a lawyer out of a cadaver, but he would never be one, really.

Do not confuse patent licensing with software copyrights. The GPL (and the L-GPL subsequently) do not care about whether the software is patent-encumbered, somebody sells binaries of it for profit (provided they comply with the terms of the license) or anything like that. The MPL is the same.