* drago:
> Well you make it sound like that had any effect on the outcome but the slides
> say that Fedora and Debian simply do not matter.
Debian would not have a practical problem with a H.264 requirement, so
I'm not sure if it matters in this context.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Björn Persson
wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>>Well you make it sound like that had any effect on the outcome but the
>>slides say that Fedora and Debian simply do not matter.
>
> Whose slides?
>
> I guess you meant this one:
> http://webrtcis.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/
drago01 wrote:
>Well you make it sound like that had any effect on the outcome but the
>slides say that Fedora and Debian simply do not matter.
Whose slides?
I guess you meant this one:
http://webrtcis.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/img_2881.jpeg
That was Jonathan Rosenberg from Cisco arguing that
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 08:11 -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> The rtcweb WG session which will discuss MTI video codec will be on
>> Thursday the 7th at 13:00 pacific. As usual the meeting will be
>> streamed and anyone can participate remo
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 08:11 -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The rtcweb WG session which will discuss MTI video codec will be on
> Thursday the 7th at 13:00 pacific. As usual the meeting will be
> streamed and anyone can participate remotely via Jabber
> (rtc...@jabber.ietf.org), but feedback can be
Hi
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> > You're proposing a continuation of the adolescent state of Linux on the
> > Desktop with its barriers to growing the market. Yes, let's build
> > artificial walls keeping out new users and developers who don't agree
> > with the ex
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 16:29, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I can only react to what has been published, which so far is "we'll do
>> better because you suck"
>>
>
> Where has anyone said that?
For example:
> You're proposin
On 11/07/2013 02:41 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 20:52, Adam Jackson a écrit :
Don't throw your hands up in resignation. Write code. Fix problems.
Isn't that exactly what this proposal does?
People claim packaging process is broken and needs to be replaced.
Who? I'd agr
Hi
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>
> I can only react to what has been published, which so far is "we'll do
> better because you suck"
>
Where has anyone said that?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/lis
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 14:46, Simo Sorce a écrit :
> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 14:41 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 20:52, Adam Jackson a écrit :
>>
>> > Don't throw your hands up in resignation. Write code. Fix problems.
>>
>> Isn't that exactly what this proposal does?
>>
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 14:41 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 20:52, Adam Jackson a écrit :
>
> > Don't throw your hands up in resignation. Write code. Fix problems.
>
> Isn't that exactly what this proposal does?
>
> People claim packaging process is broken and needs to b
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 20:52, Adam Jackson a écrit :
> Don't throw your hands up in resignation. Write code. Fix problems.
Isn't that exactly what this proposal does?
People claim packaging process is broken and needs to be replaced. But
they've not even identified the problem parts, nor trie
On 11/06/2013 08:52 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Again: don't stop the solution short based on what the current code
happens to implement.
If we're building the bundles - and there's reasons we would want to -
then we know the patches we need to apply.
Despite significant efforts, we still have so
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 17:08 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 16:05, Adam Jackson a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> >> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> >>
> >> > A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as f
On 11/06/2013 04:05 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
saying it should not be user-session wide, but application bundled).
???
Woul
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 16:05, Adam Jackson a écrit :
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>>
>> > A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
>> > saying it should not be user-session wide, but applicati
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 16:40, Alberto Ruiz a écrit :
> Think about it for a moment, we are encouraging third party apps to mess
> with our entire system just because we don't have any other channel to
> deliver end user applications or third party extensions (codecs,
> fonts, ...) than the system
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 16:15 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > It's only a nightmare because we've steadfastly refused to build the
> > tools to a) track library bundling inside app-bundles b) automate bundle
> > rebuilds c) force replacement of bundle contents either by sysadmin
> > action or by poli
Am 06.11.2013 16:40, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 16:15 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> It's only a nightmare because we've steadfastly refused to build the
>>> tools to a) track library bundling inside app-bundles b) automate bundle
>>> rebuilds c) force replacement of bundle co
Am 06.11.2013 16:05, schrieb Adam Jackson:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>>
>>> A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
>>> saying it should not be user-session wide, but application bundled).
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>
> > A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
> > saying it should not be user-session wide, but application bundled).
>
> ???
> Would you so apply the same reasoni
On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
> saying it should not be user-session wide, but application bundled).
???
Would you so apply the same reasoning to libjpeg and libtiff?
Security nightmare.
--
Roberto Ragusa
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:29:02PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:21:56 -0600,
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 13:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >>I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official
> >>Fedora
> >>position on Open
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 01:51:48PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
> > And other packages wanting to play video or do WebRTC would start to do
> > the same thing? I really can't see that happening. If at all, it
> > probably would be a Firefox-onl
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 15:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> That's not what it says. That just says we won't package the binary. What
> isn't answered is limitations on the process for Firefox downloading it
> in Fedora. I really doubt firefox will be totally prevented from downloading
> the bin
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
> And other packages wanting to play video or do WebRTC would start to do
> the same thing? I really can't see that happening. If at all, it
> probably would be a Firefox-only exception which I, personally, would
> strongly opppose.
No. Mozilla w
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:29:02PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> That's not what it says. That just says we won't package the binary.
> What isn't answered is limitations on the process for Firefox
> downloading it in Fedora. I really doubt firefox will be totally
> prevented from downloading the
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 19:35, Alberto Ruiz a écrit :
> Again, the people who have been fighting for open source media Xiph.org
> and the Mozilla organization have already acknowledge that while this
> situation is not ideal, is an improvement over the current situation,
> I'd say we should trust
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:21:56 -0600,
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 13:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official
Fedora
position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be
making
claims about Fedora on my
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 13:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official
> Fedora
> position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be
> making
> claims about Fedora on my own on how far Fedora will or won't go in
> supporting Ope
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> If it is the case that fedora will not utilize this option (or another
> to obtain h264 support) and you care about avoiding an outcome where
> Fedora is unable to claim conformance with the spec, then someone
> probably ought to comment about this to the working group.
"S
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> As per other technical/political details, Cisco is not Fluendo,
Indeed. Cisco will actually be WORSE to work with. Fluendo is a company
focusing on GNU/Linux and GStreamer. Cisco is primarily a hardware vendor.
The binaries they provide for their VPNs are notorious for bein
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official Fedora
> position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be making
> claims about Fedora on my own on how far Fedora will or won't go in
> supporting OpenH264. (
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:20:44 -0800,
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
If it is the case that fedora will not utilize this option (or another
to obtain h264 support) and you care about avoiding an outcome where
Fedora is unable to claim conformance with the spec, then someone
probably ought to commen
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I was thinking more of the non-commercial use restrictions you might end up
> agreeing to when you accept the license of the binary. In the places where
> software patents didn't apply, you'd probably either use x264 or build
> openh264 fro
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 19:30:12 +0100,
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
In the meantime we have to be practical, if Mozilla+Google have failed
to push for VP8 and accepted that for now H264 is the way to go, I am
afraid that the reality is that by making it hard to get H264 decoding
in Fedora for users t
Am 04.11.2013 19:35, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:28 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:46:07 +0100,
>>Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>>>
>>> While I agree that we shouldn't silently install non-free software (and
>>> I'm sure Mozilla doesn't want to either)
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:20:44 -0800,
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Another thing to worry about is how the binary is licensed. Accepting that
license (even in places where software patents don't apply) could
potentially cause issues. I have
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 18:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > We still have a problem with MP3, but it does solve a fundamental
> > problem.
>
> We had the same type of solution (just with a different binary producer,
> Fluendo) offered for MP3. We rejected it, due to both poli
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Google gave up on that battle, Mozilla gave up on that battle, and
> somehow you expect that the Fedora community can somehow turn the tides?
> There are better ways to push for improvements in this effort (like the
> Daala codec).
Google mos
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 19:35:28 +0100,
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
How is the code from RPMFusion any better? And if getting it through
RPMFusion is acceptable, why is it suddenly unacceptable to do it trough
other means? I don't care about the quality of the code, I just care
that my video is decod
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:28 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:46:07 +0100,
>Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> >
> >While I agree that we shouldn't silently install non-free software (and
> >I'm sure Mozilla doesn't want to either), saying that they are
> >effectively non-free is a
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:28:21AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The issue for RTC is that we could be using a royalty free codec,
> such as VP8 instead. Accepting the binary makes it more likely that
> h.264 will be made mandatory to implement, which means any company
> not wanting to implement
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The issue for RTC is that we could be using a royalty free codec, such as
> VP8 instead. Accepting the binary makes it more likely that h.264 will be
> made mandatory to implement, which means any company not wanting to
> implement VP8 can a
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> We still have a problem with MP3, but it does solve a fundamental
> problem.
We had the same type of solution (just with a different binary producer,
Fluendo) offered for MP3. We rejected it, due to both political (effectively
unmodifiable binary) and technical (interoperab
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:46:07 +0100,
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
While I agree that we shouldn't silently install non-free software (and
I'm sure Mozilla doesn't want to either), saying that they are
effectively non-free is a bit inaccurate, the _binaries_ are not
re-distributable under US jurisdi
On 11/04/2013 03:39 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 21:29 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
Fedora mustn't have third-party repositories like RPM Fusion enabled by
default. Users must consciously configure them.
Therefore Fedora mustn't download Cisco's binaries by default. It will
have
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 18:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Another important point is that future versions of Firefox will download
> > and "install" (I'm not quite sure where) the binary from Cisco's
> > website, unless some about:config setting is disabled. I imagine th
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 21:29 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Fedora mustn't have third-party repositories like RPM Fusion enabled by
> default. Users must consciously configure them.
> Therefore Fedora mustn't download Cisco's binaries by default. It will
> have to be something that users must conscio
* Michael Catanzaro:
> On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 20:45 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I expect that the actual licensing terms will only cover end users for
>> their own "personal, non-commercial use" (the language used in the end
>> user licensing terms for existing platform codecs in Windows and
>>
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 20:45 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I expect that the actual licensing terms will only cover end users for
> their own "personal, non-commercial use" (the language used in the end
> user licensing terms for existing platform codecs in Windows and
> Flash). These terms will b
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>Cisco has announced that they will be releasing an implementation of a
>BSD licensed H.264 (baseline profile) encoder and decoder, along with
>offering download of binaries of it under Cisco's licensing umbrella:
>http://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/open-source-h-264-remove
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 13:28 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 13:55:47 -0400,
>Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 12:01 -0500, Jon wrote:
> >> Do the codes only apply to WebRTC consumers, or can these be used in
> >> other context?
> >> For example Gnome has
* Gregory Maxwell:
> The intention is that any parties capable of obtaining and running the
> provided binaries (and they intended to be maximally inclusive of
> which platforms they build for) can have a fully licensed
> implementation of H.264 at no cost.
I expect that the actual licensing term
Hi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 13:55:47 -0400,
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
>> Why ? Is there any problem with using webm for this ?
>>
>
> Because some browser manufacturers are refusing to use vp8
>
Local screen recording has no connection
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 13:55:47 -0400,
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 12:01 -0500, Jon wrote:
Do the codes only apply to WebRTC consumers, or can these be used in
other context?
For example Gnome has ctrl+alt+shift+R to screen-cast, which saves in
webM format.
Could that switch
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 12:01 -0500, Jon wrote:
> Do the codes only apply to WebRTC consumers, or can these be used in
> other context?
> For example Gnome has ctrl+alt+shift+R to screen-cast, which saves in
> webM format.
> Could that switch to whatever h.264 format with Cisco bits?
Why ? Is there
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Cisco has announced that they will be releasing an implementation of a
> BSD licensed H.264 (baseline profile) encoder and decoder, along with
> offering download of binaries of it under Cisco's licensing umbrella:
> http://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/open-source-h-264-re
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Another important point is that future versions of Firefox will download
> and "install" (I'm not quite sure where) the binary from Cisco's
> website, unless some about:config setting is disabled. I imagine this
> could possibly mean H.264 will work only in Firefox but no
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The intention is that any parties capable of obtaining and running the
> provided binaries[...] can have a fully licensed
> implementation of H.264 at no cost.
IANAL, but I am sure that this will not be included in any official
Fedora repos
From my understanding, they can be used in any context.
It would probably be interesting if cisco can be convinced to make a
gstreamer plugin that is than automatically downloaded - that will
have a wide benefit.
(they have stated that they are willing to support as many platforms
as possible. Ma
Another important point is that future versions of Firefox will download
and "install" (I'm not quite sure where) the binary from Cisco's
website, unless some about:config setting is disabled. I imagine this
could possibly mean H.264 will work only in Firefox but not other
browsers, which would suc
Do the codes only apply to WebRTC consumers, or can these be used in
other context?
For example Gnome has ctrl+alt+shift+R to screen-cast, which saves in
webM format.
Could that switch to whatever h.264 format with Cisco bits?
Maybe get the lawyers to look at this?
-Jon Disnard
irc: masta
fas:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 08:11:48 -0700,
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I personally believe it would probably be helpful to the discussion if
Fedora is able to reach a (preliminary?) decision on if OpenH264 (as
described) will be able to be used by Fedora systems (e.g. by having
something analogous to
64 matches
Mail list logo
