Thanks for your answers! :) By free format, I meant a format with an open specification, and by `same image quality` I was somewhat informal there :) but I won't bother you anymore with this. I was asking because I'm in the process of replacing everything I'm doing on the computer with free equivalents, and I guess I'll be using vp8 and vp9 as you suggested in order to convert my proprietary stuff, whenever possible(I already use Vorbis for audio, and it works like a charm). ;) Thanks again!
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 00:19 +0200, ilias.k.cs@freemail.gr wrote:
Thanks for your answers! :) By free format, I meant a format with an open specification, and by `same image quality` I was somewhat informal there :) but I won't bother you anymore with this. I was asking because I'm in the process of replacing everything I'm doing on the computer with free equivalents, and I guess I'll be using vp8 and vp9 as you suggested in order to convert my proprietary stuff, whenever possible(I already use Vorbis for audio, and it works like a charm). ;) Thanks again!
For video Webm/VP8 [1] have open specifications, of course there is also Theora [2] (though not as good as VP8 imo) from Xiph.org [3] the same one that created Ogg/Vorbis [4]. For the future I would keep an eye on VP9 [5] from Google and even more on Daala [6] again from Xiph.org/Mozilla, seem very promising.
For audio I started moving to Opus [7] also from Xiph.org/Mozilla (made in collaboration with Skype, fully open) and now also an IETF Proposed Standard [8].
HTH, Simo.
[1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/# and see the Docs tab in the page for the actual format technical specifications [2] http://www.theora.org/ [3] https://www.xiph.org/ [4] http://www.vorbis.com/ [5] http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/07/vp9-lands-in-chrome-dev-channel.html [6] https://xiph.org/daala/ [7] http://www.opus-codec.org/ [8] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716
ilias.k.cs@freemail.gr writes:
By free format, I meant a format with an open specification, and by
This might be bit off-topic already but would you regard for example LaTeX as a free format? Afaik there's no strict specification, it's mostly defined by the implementation.
Hello there,
On 07.01.2014 12:35, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
ilias.k.cs@freemail.gr writes:
By free format, I meant a format with an open specification, and by
This might be bit off-topic already but would you regard for example LaTeX as a free format? Afaik there's no strict specification, it's mostly defined by the implementation.
Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
LaTeX is typically distributed along with plain TeX. It is distributed under a free software license, the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). [1]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX#Licensing
Cheers, Filip
"Filip M. Nowak" fsfe@oneiroi.net writes:
Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
It is free software but is it a free format?
On 07/01/14 18:48, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
"Filip M. Nowak" fsfe@oneiroi.net writes:
Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
It is free software but is it a free format?
Is C++ source code a free format?
"Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild" repentinus@fsfe.org writes:
Is C++ source code a free format?
That's exactly what I was asking the original poster. We don't have a clear definition for free format.
On Tuesday 07 January 2014 23:54:48 Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
We don't have a clear definition for free format.
Why not talk about open standards instead?
https://fsfe.org/activities/os/def.en.html
Kind Regards, Torsten
Torsten Grote Torsten.Grote@fsfe.org writes:
Why not talk about open standards instead?
At least point 4 is quite difficult to assess. Does ogg vorbis meet it for example? I have no idea if xiph.org foundation meets "developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;".
Also could a compelete but non-free implementation fullfill point 5?
On 07/01/14 22:08, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Torsten Grote Torsten.Grote@fsfe.org writes: At least point 4 is quite difficult to assess. Does ogg vorbis meet it for example? I have no idea if xiph.org foundation meets "developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;".
As (to the extent of my knowledge) The Xiph.Org Foundation is selling neither support nor software that implements Vorbis decoder/encoder, the Xiph.Org Foundation is not a vendor of Vorbis by definition. It is also unlikely that they are secretly collaborating with a single vendor to dictate the format.
Regarding the openness of the process… If I am not mistaken, the specification is/has been produced from the reference implementation's code base. The reference implementation itself is Free Software and its development is open to collaboration.
So in all likelihood, Vorbis conforms to point 4. Furthermore, Vorbis is considered an open standard by the Free Software community.
Also could a compelete but non-free implementation fullfill point 5?
Possibly. However, proprietary software sometimes grants its users freedom 0 (the freedom to run for any purpose), but is that relevant to Free Software in any way? No, because an Open Standard should conform to all five points in the definition as Free Software must conform to all four freedoms.
Sincerely,
On 07.01.2014 19:54, Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild wrote:
On 07/01/14 18:48, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
"Filip M. Nowak"fsfe@oneiroi.net writes:
Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
It is free software but is it a free format?
Is C++ source code a free format?
From a computer science point of view, a written specification that completely describes a format must be translatable into the actual source or machine code by a compiler that understands the specification language. With that in mind, code (freely licensed, of course) that implements a format is more complete than any natural language specification until we have compilers that understand the latter.
And we need to fix natural language to be free of inconsistencies and misunderstandings :-)
Cheers,
Mirko.
On 08/01/14 10:48, Mirko Boehm wrote:
On 07.01.2014 19:54, Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild wrote:
On 07/01/14 18:48, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
"Filip M. Nowak"fsfe@oneiroi.net writes:
Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
It is free software but is it a free format?
Is C++ source code a free format?
And we need to fix natural language to be free of inconsistencies and misunderstandings :-)
Oh no! That's why the C++ standards committee invented undefined behaviour.
In any case, the point of my rhetoric question was that there is no point in squabbling over LaTeX like that. If you use TeX to produce nicely typeset PDF-s, nobody cares whether you use LaTeX, XeTeX, MiTeX or whatever. The resulting PDF most likely conforms to Open Standards and the PDF is something you are going to distribute widely.
Choosing the TeX flavour is like choosing a programming language: if you want to write your own language, go for it; if you want to use C++, do it; if you want to use Fortran, do it. But when you compile your program, please provide the binaries for the platform the software is intended for (and obviously make sure that a free compiler implementation is available).
There are a few cases where you need to agree on a TeX version with your published or co-authors, but those cases are akin to picking a programming language for a project with friends – C++, C, Scheme, and a good few other languages are standardised, but I have yet to see someone pick one of them for the quality of being standardised.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/07/2014 07:48 PM, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
"Filip M. Nowak" fsfe@oneiroi.net writes:
Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
It is free software but is it a free format? _______________________________________________
It's a free format in the sense that it's unencumbered, unlike (e.g.) OOXML.
But the lack of specification means it's not too well-defined.
Hi,
On 07.01.2014 19:48, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
"Filip M. Nowak" fsfe@oneiroi.net writes:
Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
It is free software but is it a free format?
I think term "format" should be understood as document markup language here. It's part of LaTeX and there is no word about other form of licensing.
Cheers, Filip
On 07.01.2014 12:35, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
ilias.k.cs@freemail.gr writes:
By free format, I meant a format with an open specification, and by
This might be bit off-topic already but would you regard for example LaTeX as a free format? Afaik there's no strict specification, it's mostly defined by the implementation. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
There is Lib-ray a free format intended to replace Blu-ray: http://lib-ray.org/
Tobias Platen
Youtube is going 4K and bringing some hardware companies to support VP9 royalty-free codec.
On 2014-01-07 16:30, Tobias Platen wrote:
There is Lib-ray a free format intended to replace Blu-ray: http://lib-ray.org/
Thanks for the link. :) Cheers,
Mauricio Nascimento