Jump to content

Talk:MP4 file format: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 232: Line 232:


https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ [[User:Svnpenn|Svnpenn]] ([[User talk:Svnpenn|talk]]) 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ [[User:Svnpenn|Svnpenn]] ([[User talk:Svnpenn|talk]]) 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:Very well, now we have a secondary source saying it's not an open format, so I agree that the infobox should reflect that now.
:Very well, now we have a secondary source saying it's not an open format, so I agree that the infobox should reflect that now. By analogy, the infobox of [[ISO base media file format]] should indicate it is also not open.
:Interestingly, the update did not result in any changes to the "Last significant FDD update" field of the description, which is still at {{Format date|2023|4|25|df=y}} ({{Age in years and months|2023|4|25}} ago). --[[User:Ftrebien|Fernando Trebien]] ([[User talk:Ftrebien|talk]]) 12:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:Interestingly, the update did not result in any changes to the "Last significant FDD update" field of the description, which is still at {{Format date|2023|4|25|df=y}} ({{Age in years and months|2023|4|25}} ago). --[[User:Ftrebien|Fernando Trebien]] ([[User talk:Ftrebien|talk]]) 12:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:13, 15 March 2024


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

MP4 and ISOBMFF are open formats, even if an access fee is required

According to Open file format, "the specification of an open format may require a fee to access". Some recent edits to the infobox have stated that MP4 and ISO base media file format (ISOBMFF) are not open (the same as a trade secret), referencing GitHub issues about ISOBMFF, which are not as reliable as the Library of Congress sources that state that both MP4 and ISOBMFF are open formats. The justification in those GitHub issues was that, because the standard is not accessible without a fee, it should therefore be considered not open, which is incorrect. Although MP4 and ISOBMFF are open, they are not free as they require paying licensing fees. This is also listed in their infoboxes. Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're not editing in good faith. you've reverted several times without gaining consensus. also, you seem to be conflating the point of "is the format open" versus "is this link appropriate". tackle the issues separately. Svnpenn (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the current version of the standard has been added as requested. The link to ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003, which is the first edition of version 2, was already in the text, it only required browsing the ISO website through the Life cycle section, or using a web search engine to look for the latest iteration in MP4 file format § History, ISO/IEC 14496-14:2020. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the reference supports the information about the status, it is clear that the two cannot be treated separately, otherwise the text would become incoherent. The important point, however, is that the format is open and that the Library of Congress was and still is a much more reliable reference than some discussions on GitHub. Your reverts reintroduced an error and two less reliable references. A direct link to the standard is a welcome addition, but was not necessary to correct the previous information. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MP4_file_format#MP4_and_ISOBMFF_are_not_open_formats --Svnpenn (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like MP4, there's also the notable C programming language (ISO/IEC 9899), which is not a format but is generally considered an open standard, even though a fee is required to access the final text of the standard (the final draft is available online for free, but it differs from the final published text in some details).

Simple web searches for "is the C language an "open standard"" and "is the MP4 format an "open standard"" find many discussions (mostly on forums, blogs and smaller technology news sources) supporting the general view of that these standards are open even under an access fee. Unlike the Library of Congress, most of these sources are not of the highest standard as reliable references (just like GitHub), but they demonstrate the general understanding of this terminology by a broad audience.

So, the "zero cost access" requirement is not generally applied to the notions of open standard and open format, although some organizations (Open standard § Comparison of definitions) associate this requirement with these terms.

Moreover, most legal definions of "open format" in various jurisdictions do not impose a "zero-cost access" requirement. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IME open in this context just means equitable and reasonable access. There may be a not-for-profit charge for the technical documents and there may even be a license fee for intellectual property associated with the standard. Licensing must be reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND). ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some (though not here in Wikipedia) have raised the question of whether the CHF 96 required for MP4 is reasonable. For medium or large organizations, it is insignificant. For an individual, it might be unreasonable, depending on their country, so it is a barrier to entry for some. The ANSI Webstore describes ISO as a nonprofit organization, but I haven't found any other sources corroborating that and ISO themselves don't use that word. I'm inclined to think they technically are even if they don't say it explicitly, as I didn't find any sources saying the contrary. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Hello, I'm responding to a request for more information at WP:3O. At a glance, I see contested sources that are links to Github. Github is not a good source per WP:USERGENERATED. The source at [1] appears to clearly indicate the format is open; is there any reason to doubt the veracity of that source?

Aside from the content question: accusations of bad faith do no help build consensus and have no place in article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MP4 and ISOBMFF are not open formats

according to Wikipedia's own page:
> An open file format is licensed with an open license
<https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_file_format>
following, we get:
> A free license or open license is a license which allows others to reuse another creator’s work as they wish. Without a special license, these uses are normally prohibited by copyright, patent or commercial license.
<https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_license>
continuing, we have this copyright notice:
> © All Rights Reserved
https://iso.org/standard/83102.html
and even the standard itself is clearly marked as well:
> © 2022 ISO/IEC — All rights reserved
https://iso.org/obp#iso:std:iso-iec:14496:-12

Svnpenn (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for a further demonstration of the difference, here is some constrasting text from ACTUALLY open formats, ones covered by RFCs:
> All RFCs may be freely reproduced and translated (unmodified).
https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#copyright
the ISO standards in question explicitly forbid reproduction:
> All IEC Publications are protected by the publisher's copyright and no part of any IEC Publication can be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical including photocopying) without the written permission of the publisher (please see Copyright on IEC Standards in Database Format).
https://www.iec.ch/copyright Svnpenn (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An open file format is licensed with an open license
The reference supporting this statement in Open file format is opendefinition.org/ofd/ which has two definitions for an open format, neither of which supports this statement explicitly (the first seems to suggest it, the second certainly does not). This statement was added in March 2022 by a new editor who is now inactive. Prior to that, the introduction of Open file format reflected the definition now further down in the article, which partially contradicts this:

According to The Linux Information Project, the term open format should refer to "any format that is published for anyone to read and study but which may or may not be encumbered by patents, copyrights or other restrictions on use" – as opposed to a free format which is not encumbered by any copyrights, patents, trademarks or other restrictions.

This definition is consistent with "open format for data - definition 2" at opendefinition.org/ofd/ and with the meaning of "open standard" used by the Library of Congress. The same article also contains the following:

In contrast to open file formats, closed file formats are considered trade secrets.

This is clearly not the case with MP4 and ISOBMFF.
Also, open license ≠ open format. MP4 and ISOBMFF are open and proprietary (not free) formats. These formats are also defined by open standards. See Open standard § Comparison of definitions in the "Availability / Free of charge" column. Open file format § Examples of open formats also lists formats described as open (royalty-free with a one-time fee on the standard).
What Free license is talking about is the license that applies to work distributed making use of a specific format, not the license of the standard itself, such as whether someone is allowed to create their own extensions and modifications to the standard. The article on Free license also does not distinguish between the ideas of free and open and its content is quite superficial on this subject.
As pointed out by VQuakr in Talk:MP4 file format § 3O and others at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368 § Github as reliable source for software topics, GitHub discussions are a primary source of user-generated content which is generally unacceptable in Wikipedia per WP:USERGENERATED. These GitHub references and their interpretation of the terms open and free are not as reliable as the Library of Congress and should not be reintroduced into the article by anyone who knows and is really trying to follow Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines.
for a further demonstration of the difference, here is some constrasting text from ACTUALLY open formats, ones covered by RFCs
www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#copyright
Just because RFCs, some of which define formats, are available without a fee and are open standards, doesn't mean MP4 isn't an open format, it depends on the definition of "open format". --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> The reference supporting this statement in Open file format is opendefinition.org/ofd/ which has two definitions for an open format, neither of which supports this statement explicitly (the first seems to suggest it, the second certainly does not).
from the link:
> The Open Definition has three key requirements for a work to be open: an open license, open access, and an open format.
https://opendefinition.org/ofd/
since MP4 fails the requirement of an open license, it fails the definition of an open format.
> According to The Linux Information Project, the term open format should refer to "any format that is published for anyone to read and study but which may or may not be encumbered by patents, copyrights or other restrictions on use" – as opposed to a free format which is not encumbered by any copyrights, patents, trademarks or other restrictions.
right, so according to your own cited definition, MP4 is not an open format, because its not published for anyone to read, only those who can afford to pay for it.
> Also, open license ≠ open format.
no one is conflating the two. quoting myself again:
> An open file format is licensed with an open license
continuing:
> See Open standard § Comparison of definitions in the "Availability / Free of charge" column.
no one is arguing free of charge, its a paid item.
> As pointed out by VQuakr in Talk:MP4 file format § 3O and others at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368 § Github as reliable source for software topics, GitHub discussions are a primary source of user-generated content which is generally unacceptable in Wikipedia per WP:USERGENERATED.
noted, I will use this link instead:
https://opendefinition.org/ofd/ Svnpenn (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svnpenn: that link doesn't mention the MP4 format and therefore shouldn't be used to support a statement about the standard being open or closed per WP:SYNTH. The standard appears to be described as open at [2], doesn't it? VQuakr (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what business does LOC have over determining what is and is not an open format? any labeling of formats as open by the LOC would seem to be an opinion at best Svnpenn (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we need to make the assessment, opinions and assessments of third parties. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far you have not provided any alternative sources other than a link to a specific organization's definition of "open." That's faulty generalization. opendefinition.org is maintained by the Open Knowledge Foundation whose definition of openness is The Open Definition. It doesn't appear to be that notable, as it isn't even mentioned in Open standard and it is only mentioned in Open file format in the now questioned reference. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as this reference does not mention the MP4 file format, it cannot be used to support that it is not an open format. But the Library of Congress supports that it is an open format. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the discussion about definitions should continue in Talk:Open standard. Here, we should only discuss whether MP4 is open or not based on reliable references that explicitly connect MP4 with a status such as open, closed, or proprietary. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another problem with using opendefinition.org/ofd/ as reference is that it appears to be user-generated content based on its significant evolution and this GitHub thread. A better reference (on the "openness" of formats in general, not on the openness of MP4 in particular), also by Open Knowledge Foundation, would be opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format/, which states that Often, but not necessarily, the structure of an open format is set out in agreed standards, overseen and published by a non-commercial expert body. Although ISO requires a fee to access the text of the MP4 standard, it is not a commercial organization in the traditional sense, it is not for profit and the fee only pays its operational costs. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with using opendefinition.org/ofd/ as a reference is that its content is clearly indicated as a draft at the beginning, with text asking for help, whereas the Library of Congress source is a fully realized draft since 2012. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think tearing down https://opendefinition.org/ofd/ is a good use of anyone's time. regardless of its faults, its still referenced by Wikipedia in regards to this issue, as it should be, and its still a better source than LOC. the LOC is a government agency, not a technical one, and as such should not be relied upon as an arbiter in this discussion. Svnpenn (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is good use as opendefinition.org does not mention the MP4 format at all. For the sake of the discussion about the general concept, if only technical agencies are to be considered, then we should also consider the definition by the Open Source Initiative at opensource.org/osr that states that an open standard MUST be freely and publicly available (e.g., from a stable web site) under royalty-free terms at reasonable and non-discriminatory cost which is not the same thing as zero cost which is the definition you are pushing for. There is also OpenStand at open-stand.org, a joint definition by IEEE, ISOC, W3C, IETF and IAB, all technical agencies, which states that the terms of availability of an open standard may vary from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). We could continue nitpicking to support any particular view, going through the whole list at Open standard § Comparison of definitions, while the main point to be addressed here - whether the MP4 file format is open or not - continues to be incorrectly addressed using a reference that does not mention the MP4 file format at all. The reference that is currently in use is an obvious fictitious reference. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> It is good use as opendefinition.org does not mention the MP4 format at all
classic "no true scotsman". this page:
ISO base media file format
links here:
Open file format
which in turn links here:
https://opendefinition.org/ofd/
so in this sense, the OFD page is important to the discussion, while the LOC page is an opinion of a non-techincal government agency at best. if a "better" page is available than the OFD, please find it and add it to the "open file format" Wiki page. tearing down OFD without presenting any viable alternatives is not constructive. Svnpenn (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This content (claiming that "an open file format is licensed with an open license") and that reference (from opendefinition.org) which does not support that content were introduced in March 2022 by Avoinlähde, who was a new editor at the time and is now inactive. The previous version and its predecessors did not make that incorrect logical leap. The current version, and the earliest March 2022 version, and many previous versions have included some examples in Open file format § Examples of open formats that, just like MP4, were still considered open formats even when requiring a one-time fee. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again, this entire comment and several previous seem intent on tearing down existing references without providing counter references. the ONLY counter reference provided that I can remember is the LOC link, which again is a non technical government agency. if you have more or better links, please provide them. otherwise this is not a constructive use of anyone's time Svnpenn (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Open standard § Comparison of definitions four times. This article has 73 references. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can you clarify how that link applies to this situation? it doesn't mention MP4 or even ISO/IEC. it mentions "free of charge", which is not part of the discussion here Svnpenn (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think whenever I mentioned this I made very clear the relationship between this and what was being discussed (the definition of the term "open" in the expression "open format"). You chose many times to ignore this link which shows how various organizations define it, then accused me of acting in bad faith, vandalizing and having an agenda, in an attempt to justify imposing your particular understanding of the concept. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the table in question argues my own point, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. several organizations in the table mention FREE OF CHARGE as a requirement to an open standard
> then accused me of acting in bad faith, vandalizing and having an agenda
I would say making edits across several pages, including removing text and links NOT added by me, in order to strengthen your view, yes qualifies as bad faith, vandalizing and having an agenda. Svnpenn (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you admitting you are not assuming good faith? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great example of why we avoid circular references and original synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please replace the following two parameters in {{Infobox file format}} with the following content: 

| open          = Yes<ref name="loc" /><ref name="v2ed3">{{cite tech report |publisher=[[International Organization for Standardization|ISO]] |type=Standard |number=ISO/IEC 14496-14:2020 |title=Information technology – Coding of audio-visual objects – Part 14: MP4 file format |edition=3rd |date=January 2020 |url=https://www.iso.org/standard/79110.html |url-access=subscription}}</ref>
| free          = No<ref name="loc">{{cite tech report |publisher=Library of Congress |location=Washington, D.C. |series=Sustainability of Digital Formats |type=Full draft |title=MPEG-4 File Format, Version 2 |date=25 April 2023 |url=https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml |access-date=23 February 2024}}</ref>

This restores the content that the Open format? field of the infobox had from December 2021 to January 2024 (though during this period it did not have an explicit reference) and also restores reliable references that state that the MP4 file format is open. The current references only define what open means without mentioning MP4. They were first added at the last minute before article protection and there was no consensus that they supported this interpretation of the open status of MP4. Fernando Trebien (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request seems central to the dispute above. Are you claiming there is consensus for this edit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems so to me, but just to be sure, @VQuakr: do you agree or disagree with this request? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fernando Trebien: that appears to be the central question of the dispute taking up several sections above and at Talk:ISO base media file format. Since the edit warring has continued after a third opinion was provided, I think discussion at WP:DRN or use of a WP:RFC would be the best path forward. VQuakr (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disagree. I am not sure how you could possibly come to the conclusion that consensus has been reached, unless you've ignore the discussion over the last days. Svnpenn (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third opinion also questioned the validity of the GitHub and opendefinition.org references you inserted to support your point of view and agreed that the Library of Congress has clearly stated that MP4 is an open standard. Thus, two out of three people involved in the discussion consider these two sources inadequate. They should be removed while discussion continues. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when an issue has strong disagreement, its usually best to pause changes until after a resolution. also two people does not make a consensus. Svnpenn (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you keep reverting and introducing questioned references (questioned not just by me) after I called you to this discussion on your user talk page? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comment. I believe the current state of the articles has removed the GitHub references, out of respect for the previous discussion. hopefully you can follow this example and stop reintroducing dubious references until they have been agreed upon Svnpenn (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of three editors involved in this discussion have questioned the reliability of the Library of Congress as a reference, while two of them have questioned the reliability of GitHub and applicability of opendefinition.org which is the "current state" of MP4 file format and ISO base media file format. Regarding Open file format, I hope you won't remove the failed verification notice now that I have launched a discussion on the talk page. As you say, discuss first, modify when there's consensus. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected, that was not the case. You just removed the warning without discussion, and your edit comment does not address the issue I pointed out. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ftrebien: I don't think the LoC source is great. It mentions the format is open in a tabular way, without any discussion in prose. It's better than nothing and @Svnpenn: has not presented any suitable sources that I can see since [3] is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH, but surely this is some better source that addresses this more definitively either way? VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any better secondary sources over the years that assess the legal terms of media formats. The Library of Congress makes this information available in the context of a project called Sustainability of Digital Formats where this information is provided for MP4 and also for many other digital multimedia formats. I think it's the best source we have today for this purpose and probably for many years to come for Wikipedia as a whole (for many codecs as well). For technical questions about these formats, one may reference directly the primary sources, many of which are provided by the Library of Congress too. There is a lot of confusion about the legality of these technologies on the Internet, and those who work on the software side are generally not legal experts, and there are advocacy groups trying to define or redefine the vocabulary (words like open, free, freedom, etc.), making communication more difficult, especially over long periods of time. I don't believe that the Library of Congress has any interest in promoting this or that terminology, quite the contrary, due to the nature of their work I think they are interested in the longevity of their stored content and in cost optimization (knowing which licenses they would have to pay for or might have to pay in the future), so in the debate about what "openness" means, I think they would be a neutral source. They work with US legal definitions and may still make mistakes in their assessment, but I expect this to be very unlikely. For MP4 in particular, they reviewed their "full draft" at least twice: in 2012 (the date of the document when I first found it in 2018) and in 2023 (the current version). MP4 media is ubiquitous, so I think they are very likely to go the extra mile to get it as correctly as possible. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I think neither opendefinition.org nor opendatahandbook.org are good sources for Wikipedia in this case is because they are run by a non-neutral advocacy group that is trying to define/redefine the terminology rather than providing the big picture of its use (current or historical). But it's probably best to discuss this at Talk:Open file format § Open formats require an open licence?. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how would you feel about simply removing the "open format" specifier? I think we can both agree that its not currently well defined, and might never be. "free format" is more or less clear without disagreement I think, so we should keep that.instead of "open format", we could change the key to "open license" and/or "open access", in which case I think we could reach consensus on the status of those Svnpenn (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good path forward with the information we have. If there are no sources that describe this format as closed, then we should follow the sources and say that it's open per WP:V. VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
according to the link provided by User:Ftrebien:
Open standard#Comparison of definitions
different bodies have starkly different opinions about what is an "open format" or "open standard". so insisting that we decide on something that is clearly undecided, doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time. seems like it would be better to remove the disputed content until an actual consensus is reached, both on Wikipedia and broadly. Svnpenn (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be undue weight if the use of terminology has not changed much yet, for which we would need reliable references or consensus from a wider discussion. Doing this by oneself could qualify as original research. This is the kind of judgment that is best left to the experts writing the secondary sources, and it would take some time for Wikipedia to reflect the change in definitions. Wikipedia is not an advocacy tool, though it can describe its advances. There are some organizations on this list that are much more influential than others, particularly in English-speaking countries, such as the UK government, and in technology circles and in the context of digital data formats, such as IEEE, ITU-T, Microsoft and W3C. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia says on the topic is not relevant per WP:CIRCULAR. Again, the only reliable source presented has said the format is open so that is what the article should say. VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is strange (comment removed by author). Since it refers to this article, I will reply about it here. I think the "Open format?" and "Free format?" fields in the infobox should continue to link to the currently linked articles so that readers learn what they mean, and I think that after so much discussion we are perfectly capable of deciding what they should contain in both MP4 file format and ISO base media file format, even if we conclude it should not contain a strict "yes" or "no". But I think the references we have allow us to provide a clear value. MP4 file format is classified as a high importance article for WikiProject Media, it had around 30 thousand monthly page views for the last 12 months, and it is the single most accessed article about a video container, about three times as much as the second most accessed article in this format category, Matroska, so accurate information about it is in high demand. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> This proposal is strange, almost as if I'm dealing with a gambler.
ad hominem. I am trying to find a compromise, why are you unwilling to compromise at all?
> I think that after so much discussion we are perfectly capable of deciding what they should contain in both MP4 file format and ISO base media file format
really? is that why you opened this page:
<https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Svnpenn>
thats not a sign that consensus is close.
> But I think the references we have allow us to provide a clear value.
even the link that you provided contracts this statement:
<https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard#Comparison_of_definitions>
> accurate information about it is in high demand
we are talking essentially about a matter of opinion. consensus seems unlikely, both on Wikipedia and broadly. so it would make sense to include accurate information WHERE POSSIBLE, for example regarding the values of "free format", "open license" and "open access". Svnpenn (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the reliability of the secondary sources we have. To achieve a neutral point of view, we must refrain from taking sides and simply describe contradictory opinions. This applies well to the leading section of Open file format, but in the case of MP4, we only have one reliable secondary source assessing the MP4 format as an open format, we have no other reliable secondary source contradicting this directly, only indirectly, which, as VQuakr pointed out, would amount to synthesis. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ftrebien: I don't see how musing about other editors' vices helps anyone or is a good use of an article talk page. Please consider striking that. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. The intention was to give a lighter tone to an apparently tense discussion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant to actually remove it, not literally strike a line through it. I take offense to the comment, as its rude and off topic. Svnpenn (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too am offended by your baseless accusations. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
section has been removed, I would ask you to do the same. lets try to keep it constructive going forward Svnpenn (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section contained a well-based description of why I thought you were acting in bad faith. You removed that description along with your accusations and that may be good, however, the remaining discussions here still have 2 points where you accuse me of bad faith. In this second point you also accuse me of vandalism and having an agenda, the same accusations that the section you removed had, and these accusations are also at the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you please drop it? we both could have acted better. can we please move on and try to find a compromise? Svnpenn (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We generally strike not erase own comments per WP:REDACT, and certainly shouldn't be removing other editors' replies per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. VQuakr (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we could change the key to "open license" and/or "open access"
If "key" refers to the parameters of the infobox template that render fields in the generated infobox, this would involve modifying the template to add these new fields. When we design infoboxes, we try to keep them concise. I think these proposed new fields are unnecessary for the following reasons:
  • Open access is already represented by the url-access=subscription parameter of the reference to the standard, which is rendered as a red lock with the "Paid subscription required" tooltip text. This has been a common feature of many Wikipedia articles for many years.
  • Open license = free license which is the typical license type of a free format, so it's redundant as we already have a "free format" field in the infobox. It is with licenses that the terms "open" and "free" cause the most confusion. In other related expressions (such as standard, format, software, work, etc.) these are broadly understood as "published and available for the public to see and study in detail" and "usable without any fees" respectively, and "fee" generally refers to those applied to digital distribution and broadcasting, which generally result in much greater costs over time than the initial access fee to the text of the standard.
This template is important to WikiProject Software and any attempts to change it should be considered carefully. Avoinlähde tried to change it while inserting the statement I questioned in Talk:Open file format and the template changes were reverted because they broke many articles. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on whether MP4 is an open format

Should the infobox indicate that MP4 is an open format, that it is not an open format, or say nothing about it?

Related RfCs:

Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should indicate that MP4 is NOT an open format, or simply dont have the "open format" key included in the box. I have received private communication today from Library of Congress confirming their position that MP4 is NOT an open format. I am happy to publish that communication here or verify however needs to be done. Svnpenn (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svnpenn The unpublished opinion of the Library of Congress is irrelevant. We need published answers in reliable sources. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you saying the Library of Congress is not a reliable source? Svnpenn (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svnpenn If it isn't published...it isn't a source. Get them to publish something. Or find something published. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOC now confirms MP4 is not open

The LOC link now correctly reflects that MP4 "is not considered an open format":

https://loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

and hasn't been since its removal from the ISO publicly available standards:

https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ Svnpenn (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, now we have a secondary source saying it's not an open format, so I agree that the infobox should reflect that now. By analogy, the infobox of ISO base media file format should indicate it is also not open.
Interestingly, the update did not result in any changes to the "Last significant FDD update" field of the description, which is still at 25 April 2023 (1 year, 2 months ago). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MP4_file_format&oldid=1213837847"