Google Announces WebM Community Cross Licensing

theweatherelectric writes "Google's WebM project has announced the formation of the WebM Community Cross-License Initiative. Members of the WebM-CCL agree to license patents they may hold that are essential to WebM technologies to other members under royalty-free terms. This initiative would seem to address some of Microsoft's concerns about WebM. Meanwhile, the MPEG LA appears to have remained silent after the submission period of its call for patents essential to WebM ended over a month ago."

Re:Holders ?

[theweatherelectric]

From the FAQ [webm-ccl.org]:

Does the WebM Project require that I join the CCL to use WebM?

No. Xiph.org, Matroska and Google make the WebM technologies available under an open-source BSD license. The terms and conditions of that open-source license have not changed.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[moronoxyd]

Have you had a look at the list of companies that join this CCL?

Besides Google we have Xiph.org (who develop Ogg Vorbis, which is the audio codec used by WebM), Matroska (the WEbM container is based on their container format), Mozilla and Opera (who use WebM in their browsers), companies lei MIPS and TI who most probably are in the process of developing chips who will use WebM in hardware, and so on.

These are companies that use WebM in some way and who join the CCL to support each other and the format against patent trolls and attacks like that of MPEG-LA (read: Microsoft and Apple).

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[x*yy*x]

But the truth is, WP8/WebM is just too late. H.264 is already everywhere.. And it's not just about your video player on linux, but the actual real world usage. H.264 is on TV broadcasts, game consoles, computers, mobile phones, advanced video processing software and all that goes into actual production.. It's everywhere. WP8 on the other hand isn't, it's just on your computer. That is not good enough for the real world. And then theres the facts that H.264 is both faster and gives better quality (and that is the thing what matters to people, not licenses) and that H.265 is coming out in a few years and again contains significant improvements and new technology.

If you want to have an open video format, you have to look into the future. You cannot replace it now. Improve the open video format and it's algorithm and win the next round. But it wont be won just because it's "open" (H.264 is too), but because it's a better standard. By far WP8 is not.

Re:Holders ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't say anything about patents though. Either there are no patents (or only patents licensed for free to anyone), in which case this CCL group is unnecessary, or there are patents, in which case you either have to join the group (presumably impossible for us regular schmoes) or face litigation. As an independent developer who'd like to maybe use WebM in one of my games, this tells me that WebM is unsafe and I should stick with Theora. Am I wrong?

Re:MPEG is trouble

[TheRaven64]

MPEG is an ISO working group (the Motion Picture Experts Group), which oversees the creation of standards for encoding digital video. MPEG LA is an industry consortium that collects royalties on MPEG standards, after they are official ISO standards. There are some common members, but MPEG LA is not in any way affiliated with MPEG.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[peragrin]

H.264 is only around for as long as MPEG-LA doesn't charge you for viewing as well as decoding the video files.

Take a good look at what they can do. they can place a per viewer, per decoder, per encoder, per streamed, charge on every video you view online.

Right now they only charge for the streamers, and encoders. but every year they release a statement saying they can do the rest but aren't for the next couple of years.

Re:Holders ?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the FAQ [webm-ccl.org]:

Does the WebM Project require that I join the CCL to use WebM?

No. Xiph.org, Matroska and Google make the WebM technologies available under an open-source BSD license. The terms and conditions of that open-source license have not changed.

Sorry, but in case other members do have patents, the actual terms say that only end users and members are protected, not persons developing, distributing WebM or using WebM for non-personal use.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[shutdown -p now]

If Microsoft really wanted WebM dead so bad, then why is it the only codec other than H.264 that's whitelisted in IE9's implementation of HTML5 video?

(the codec itself needs to be separately downloaded [google.com], but it's the only third-party codec that IE9 allows)