14 DAY TRIAL // With HTML5 getting a big boost last week, after both YouTube and Vimeo rolled out versions of their sites based on the proposed web standard, some people were wondering why neither of them work on Firefox. It has to do with the codec both sites use, h.264, which is patented by the MPEG-LA and not with the broader HTML5 support in Firefox which is actually pretty advanced.
Mozilla argues that, because of its proprietary nature, h.264 is not a real option for the open-source browser or the web at large for that matter. Over the weekend, several Mozilla people spoke out arguing their choice and explaining why h.264 is a bad choice and why Firefox won't support it. Mike Shaver, Mozilla's vice president of engineering, wrote on the matter, and so did open-source evangelist Christopher Blizzard and Robert O'Callahan, both working at Mozilla.
Their arguments are basically the same, h.264 is patent encumbered and, even though the licensing at this point is fairly liberal, meaning that almost everybody can use it on their website for free, this can change at any point.
"For Mozilla, H.264 is not currently a suitable technology choice. In many countries, it is a patented technology, meaning that it is illegal to use without paying license fees to the MPEG-LA. Without such a license, it is not legal to use or distribute software that produces or consumes H.264-encoded content. Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA, and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010," Shaver writes.
Mozilla could, of course, just pay the license fees which would be as much as $5 million per year, but the organization says that this doesn't really solve the problem. "One big reason is that that would violate principles of free software that we strongly believe in. In particular, we believe that downstream recipients of our code should be able to modify and redistribute it without losing any functionality," O'Callahan wrote.
"These license fees affect not only browser developers and distributors, but also represent a toll booth on anyone who wishes to produce video content. And if H.264 becomes an accepted part of the standardized web, those fees are a barrier to entry for developers of new browsers, those bringing the web to new devices or platforms, and those who would build tools to help content and application development," Shaver added.
The other problem with paying the license fees is that, because h.264 comes under a license that can change at MPEG-LA's will. If it becomes widespread enough, it could start charging web developers for using it or ask more from the software makers which implemented support.
There are a couple of solutions to get around this, but none are appealing for Mozilla. For example, using the codecs already installed on the users' machines, which is one idea, doesn't fix the issue at large, it just passes the burden on the user. O'Callahan lists several of the other proposed solution and explains why they aren't a viable option.
The decision to forgo support for h.264 may end up hurting Firefox and its market share, but maybe the organization's determination will end up altering the current trend and will push people towards open solutions. But there's a third way this could all go. Google is in the process of acquiring codec maker On2 leading to the very real possibility that it may release a competitive codec under an open license and will also implement it on YouTube and in Chrome. Blizzard says that if this were to happen, Mozilla would be more than willing to support it so it looks like the ball may be in Google's court at the moment.