5 ms·

Linux Vivaldi builds use libffmpeg.so from chromium-ffmpeg, which includes decoders for most codecs used on the web (no h265/mpeg2 tho), and VA-API which will h

by rasz 7d ago

Linux Vivaldi builds use libffmpeg.so from chromium-ffmpeg, which includes decoders for most codecs used on the web (no h265/mpeg2 tho), and VA-API which will handle all hardware accelerated codecs on particular platform. This looks similar to using Microsoft provided Media Foundation codecs. No idea why Black Magic doesnt do it like Linux Chromium browsers.

dasyatidprime 6d ago
Do you have any information on how the actual patent licensing is set up for Vivaldi? I wasn't able to find much on it, though I see the note in https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Vivaldi https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Vivaldi that it “automatically downloads” the relevant files, which is at least suggestive that they can't just redistribute the binaries normally. The other closest thing I was able to find was https://github.com/chromiumembedded/cef/issues/3559 https://github.com/chromiumembedded/cef/issues/3559 which describes a specific proprietary_codecs option in CEF, which is not quite the same thing but ought in some sense to be related… the way they describe having to set ffmpeg_brand=Chrome normally for that to be available doesn't sound promising? I would be moderately surprised if whatever arrangement is going on there allows full use of the codecs for video editing software and not just for consumer decode of Web resources.
- rasz 6d ago
  I would suspect that since they leverage VA-API (and NVDEC/NVENC thu shim) all patent stuff is pushed on to hardware vendors?
  - dasyatidprime 6d ago
    That doesn't sound right to me at all. I'm pretty hazy on the specifics of VA-API, but I wasn't under the impression that the graphics hardware carries 100% of the decode implementation nor had codec licenses attached to it, and this Phoronix article from 2022 describing Fedora having to back off from having accidentally shipped H.264 via VA-API without appropriate licensing seems to be evidence in the direction I expected. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Disable-Bad-VA-API https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Disable-Bad-VA-API
    - rasz 5d ago
      Fedora is legally owned by Red Hat, Red Hat is owned by IBM, IBM loves patents and will always have most pro patent view possible.
      - dasyatidprime 5d ago
        If there were definitely no legal encumbrances, surely they'd want to keep shipping the version with the proprietary codecs in, because that would make them a superior option for users who need those? AFAICT someone upstream thought that having the toggle to avoid patent issues was important, which if true nixes the idea that VA-API just gives you an automatic unencumbered route and you don't have to worry about it after that. I'm not really sure what actual claim you're making regarding the relevance of “pro-patent views”, but I might interpret it as something like “Red Hat is more likely to play it safe, whereas less IBM-enculturated distributions are more likely to bet on interpretations that let the users take on the risk”. Which I think is probably true; for instance, https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/xqn20n/comment/iqbmvi0/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/xqn20n/comment/iqbmv... describes how other distributions chose differently and moved to re-enable the proprietary codecs by default. (Some of them seem to be based in friendlier jurisdictions, mind. I'm not completely sure where BMD is, and I'm not sure how much it matters given they want to sell worldwide, but their full corporate name resolves most strongly to Australia: https://opengovau.com/business/30098098287 https://opengovau.com/business/30098098287 and Australia doesn't seem to exclude software from patentability: https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what-are-patents/what-computer-related-inventions-can-be-patented https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what-are-patents/what...) Anyway, if that's what you meant, I don't think that distinction is nearly as applicable to the situation with Resolve. BMD isn't a producer of a Linux distribution containing a broad variety of stuff, where “users happen to do stuff with the open source software we provide that violates some patents” can maybe be waved off as not their responsibility. BMD is very obviously directly operating in the commercially-distributed professional video tooling market, so codec licensing will be something they have to deal with as a keystone part of their business. Adding something to their software to actively enable people to do professional-style encoding for those codecs without the patent licenses would be playing with fire.

by rasz 7d ago

dasyatidprime 6d ago

Do you have any information on how the actual patent licensing is set up for Vivaldi? I wasn't able to find much on it, though I see the note in https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Vivaldi https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Vivaldi that it “automatically downloads” the relevant files, which is at least suggestive that they can't just redistribute the binaries normally. The other closest thing I was able to find was https://github.com/chromiumembedded/cef/issues/3559 https://github.com/chromiumembedded/cef/issues/3559 which describes a specific proprietary_codecs option in CEF, which is not quite the same thing but ought in some sense to be related… the way they describe having to set ffmpeg_brand=Chrome normally for that to be available doesn't sound promising? I would be moderately surprised if whatever arrangement is going on there allows full use of the codecs for video editing software and not just for consumer decode of Web resources.

rasz 6d ago
I would suspect that since they leverage VA-API (and NVDEC/NVENC thu shim) all patent stuff is pushed on to hardware vendors?
- dasyatidprime 6d ago
  That doesn't sound right to me at all. I'm pretty hazy on the specifics of VA-API, but I wasn't under the impression that the graphics hardware carries 100% of the decode implementation nor had codec licenses attached to it, and this Phoronix article from 2022 describing Fedora having to back off from having accidentally shipped H.264 via VA-API without appropriate licensing seems to be evidence in the direction I expected. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Disable-Bad-VA-API https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Disable-Bad-VA-API
  - rasz 5d ago
    Fedora is legally owned by Red Hat, Red Hat is owned by IBM, IBM loves patents and will always have most pro patent view possible.
    - dasyatidprime 5d ago
      If there were definitely no legal encumbrances, surely they'd want to keep shipping the version with the proprietary codecs in, because that would make them a superior option for users who need those? AFAICT someone upstream thought that having the toggle to avoid patent issues was important, which if true nixes the idea that VA-API just gives you an automatic unencumbered route and you don't have to worry about it after that. I'm not really sure what actual claim you're making regarding the relevance of “pro-patent views”, but I might interpret it as something like “Red Hat is more likely to play it safe, whereas less IBM-enculturated distributions are more likely to bet on interpretations that let the users take on the risk”. Which I think is probably true; for instance, https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/xqn20n/comment/iqbmvi0/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/xqn20n/comment/iqbmv... describes how other distributions chose differently and moved to re-enable the proprietary codecs by default. (Some of them seem to be based in friendlier jurisdictions, mind. I'm not completely sure where BMD is, and I'm not sure how much it matters given they want to sell worldwide, but their full corporate name resolves most strongly to Australia: https://opengovau.com/business/30098098287 https://opengovau.com/business/30098098287 and Australia doesn't seem to exclude software from patentability: https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what-are-patents/what-computer-related-inventions-can-be-patented https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what-are-patents/what...) Anyway, if that's what you meant, I don't think that distinction is nearly as applicable to the situation with Resolve. BMD isn't a producer of a Linux distribution containing a broad variety of stuff, where “users happen to do stuff with the open source software we provide that violates some patents” can maybe be waved off as not their responsibility. BMD is very obviously directly operating in the commercially-distributed professional video tooling market, so codec licensing will be something they have to deal with as a keystone part of their business. Adding something to their software to actively enable people to do professional-style encoding for those codecs without the patent licenses would be playing with fire.