Talk:List of open-source codecs

iLBC ?

Hello,

I think iLBC is also an open source codec. Going on it's page, however, it says it's freeware. There's a licence there (that I'm too lazy too read) and the codec is also defined in RFC 3951. I think it probably belongs to this list. --Hdante 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain iLBC is not open source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.100.14 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The codec comes with source code and the website says it is free as in free speech, however, they're using their own license, which as far as I know, is not officially accepted as an Open Source license or a Free Software license. Furthermore, the license says that you may use, reproduce and modify the code solely for your personal use. This directly violates point 6 of the Open Source Definition:

"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

So I'm removing this product from the article, it is not an open-source product.—J. M. (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

free MPEG4 part 2?

Could someone add to the ffmpeg list of free codecs an explaination why mpeg4 part 2 is free? From what I've read mpeg4 is is exacly the codec that makes you pay through your nose for it.

Please read the article title and the first paragraph of the article - everything is explained there. This article is about open-source codecs and containers. Codec is a piece of sotware - this is about software, not compression formats such as MPEG-4 part 2. FFmpeg MPEG-4 is a codec (that is, software) and it is free as in Free Software and open-source as described in the Open Source definition. It is an open-source product and that's what this article is about. XviD is an MPEG-4 codec, too, x264 is an MPEG-4 codec, too, and they're both included in the article, too. Actually, there are open-source codecs that are missing in the article, such as LAME (which is an MPEG codec, too), probably due to this confusion.—J. M. 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that every multimedia format has, or could have, an open source codec. So this page has no real constraints, and thus seems useless. Wouldn't a list of codecs and containers unencumbered by patents be more useful? Superm401 - Talk 04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why useless? Some users may prefer open-source codecs, for example because they use an operating system which commercial software makers don't care about. The constraint is whether the codec is open-source or not, that's why for example codecs like DivX, WMV or RealVideo are not included. I think a list of patent-free codecs would be rather short. Almost everything in the multimedia field is patented. Plus, proving it's patent-free could be too difficult (you may never know if there's some patent out there which is relevant to the codec). But there are bits of this information in other articles – the Comparison of video codecs article has that "Patented compression" section, plus the Open format article lists some free multimedia formats. —J. M. 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Video codecs

x264 isn't a codec, and it doesn't seem like H264, the actual codec, is open source. Listing H264 is highly inappropriate if it's not open source since, you know, that's the point of this article. :) Yfrwlf (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, x264 is not a codec, but because it is only an encoder (codecs must include both an anCOder and a DECoder). So, that is a legitimate point. However, H.264 is not "the actual codec". H.264 is the specification, the format, the standard. Actual codecs then implement the specifications in either software or hardware. Which also means that formats such as H.264 are not "open-source" or "closed-source", formats are not software products (standards are not defined in the form of a source code, but in the format specification). The actual software implementations such as x264 can be open-source. And that's what this article is all about—open-source software products that encode and decode video. Like Xvid, which is an open-source software product that implements the patented MPEG-4 video compression technology (exactly like x264, which is also an open-source software product that implements the patented MPEG-4 video compression technology).—J. M. (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also wonder why this article includes containers, then. Because the term "open-source container" is nonsense. Just like video compression formats are implemented in software or hardware decoders and encoders (which can then be open-source or closed-source), containers are implemented in demuxers and muxers (software products that can be open-source or closed-source). Which means this article is slightly confused, probably because the original author didn't understand the basic concepts.—J. M. (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And because nobody seems to be interested in this paradox (an article about something that does not exist), I am removing the container section, changing the article to "Open source codecs". Because firstly, the container section freely mixes software (libavformat, libquicktime) with formats (Ogg, Matroska, NUT), which does not make any sense, secondly, even if we could explain the nonsensical term "open source containers" by "containers for which open source muxers and demuxers are available", then by this definition, Microsoft's AVI is an open-source container, too. So "open source muxers/demuxers" could be used instead, but then, this would be a mess, as there are so many open-source programs using their own muxers or demuxers which (being just a part of the program) may not even have a name.—J. M. (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the answer is that the original author, and what is meant by "open source" now days, more specifically refers to openness and not just with the source. You can make an open source implementation of anything, you're right, even those things which use protocols, codecs, standards, APIs, etc, which are "closed down" in one way or another. So, how about a section for a listing of open standards, such as codecs, containers, etc, where creating implementations of the standards is easy because the standards are made freely available, and a section for open source implementations of different standards both closed and open. The title could be changed to something like "Open codecs, containers, and implementations". That is the goal of this article, to show off those things which are open in general, and MKV for example is definitely an open container format to my knowledge. It also needs to be specified which ones are patented and not, since this definitely effects how open it truly is, so either include a section for the things which are patented or leave them out altogether and note that patented things should not be included. So, I'd undo your deletes and simply rearrange and add to the structure of this article for clarification. For example I'm quite sure that FLAC, Vorbis, OGG, and other formats are completely open in every way, so those are definitely open codecs, and I guess Vorbis is the implementation of the Vorbis codec for example, so it could be included in both the codec/implementation and format/standard sections or whatnot? ^^ Yfrwlf (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, what you want to do is create a completely new article, which has absolutely nothing to do with the original one. So feel free to do so, that is, instead of moving this article again (which would make little sense, as the article has been here since 2006, with many pages linking to it, so suddenly changing the article topic and contents completely would be harmful), create a new article called Open multimedia formats. But you could add the information to an existing article instead: we already have Open format and Free file format. You can add specific multimedia information there, the articles are more general (and therefore attracting potentially larger audience), yet they're challenged with request for merging or even deletion as some people don't believe even the term "free file format" is notable on Wikipedia. In fact, the Free file format article already lists Ogg, Matroska etc., so there is no need to duplicate it. Instead of creating another related article, just even smaller, even more specialized and even more obscure (and therefore even more prone to deletion), you could join forces with the "bigger guys". But then, be careful to meet the definitions: what exactly "open format" or "free format" means.—J. M. (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

MKV and MKA

what about those ? - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 11:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, .mkv and .mka are filename extensions, the format name is Matroska. Secondly, this article is about codecs (software products that encode and decode audio and video). Matroska is a container format.—J. M. (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any page on wikipedia about "List of free container formats"?. If not, I think that we could have a little session here. I don't see problems. Vinipsmaker —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

There's the Comparison of container formats article, which is a general container format comparison, and the Open format article, which lists the so called "free formats", including multimedia container formats. And what exactly does "free container format" mean? Containers are not software products, so patents might be one aspect—are the formats patent-encumbered or not? This also implies the "free to implement" aspect. But you can never be sure about that, because the whole multimedia world is covered by so many patents that nobody can say for sure what isn't patented (we can only know for sure that some formats are covered by patents). For example, Larry Horn, the CEO of MPEG LA, said a patent pool is already being considered for VP8, which was not supposed to violate any 3rd-party patents ([1]). The patent-free status of Vorbis and Theora has been questioned many times, too. So unless we have a 100% guarantee that the formats are not covered by any patent, they should not be listed as "free formats" if it's supposed to mean "patent-free". Or is it the fact that it was designed by open-source/free software developers? Then you would be confusing software with formats (a very common confusion). So it should be carefully considered. Anyway, this article is only about software products. Formats (either container formats, video compression formats or audio compression formats) are outside the scope of this article.—J. M. (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DAB question

Free codecs ends up here (redirect). However, I was looking for free-codecs, because I wanted to wikilink publisher=free-codecs.com as used in references. An external link in a DAB hatnote can't be okay, but maybe a hatnote in the direction of "free codecs" redirects here, for "free-codecs" see "#External links" could handle this nit. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

FAAC and FAAD

It says that the FAAD codec is open source and only the encoder is proprietary yet the articles say both are not open source which I assume to be correct as AAC is not an open source codec it is part of mpeg 4.

I think whoever wrote that part is confusing freeware with open source. Freeware is free as in you don't have to pay but usually it is proprietary meaning you are not allowed the code but open source software while usually free can require payment for a copy of the code. when you buy it you buy a copy of the code like buying a book. Free open source usually you can download from a site like github or as a tar.gz to compile on your own computer. Free open source software like FLAC for example there are more of than open-source software you pay for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.131.165 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)