Talk:MP4 file format

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

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[edit]

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]

RfC on whether MP4 is an open format[edit]

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]
  • [2] indicates it is an open standard, so our article should reflect that. Private communications are not relevant per WP:V. VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as repeatedly mentioned, MP4 also fails the open format as defined by these sources as well:
    https://opendefinition.org/ofd/
    https://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format/
    also I am happy to verify the private communications by whatever means needed. the Library of Congress has privately refuted the only source in support of MP4 being an open format. if you want to ignore that information at this time, suit yourself. Svnpenn (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SYNTH. WP:V. None of those items have any bearing whatsoever on the decision. Repeating yourself won't change that. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    here is another source as well:
    > Since using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only using open formats on our sites, WMF has opened this Request for Comments to seek community guidance.
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video Svnpenn (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons is, of course, also not a source per WP:USERGENERATED. VQuakr (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > None of those items have any bearing whatsoever on the decision
    this comment of course is incorrect. MP4 fails the definition on the linked pages, hence it is not an open format. Svnpenn (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to that, this 66.600 word long forum discussion does not seem based on a common definition of "open format". Some comments there seem to work with somewhat different assumptions about the expression. It seems reasonable to assume that participants involved with a Wikimedia project would have largely adopted the terminology of free and open-source software projects on which much of Wikimedia's tools and culture are based, which are closely aligned with The Open Definition by the Open Knowledge Foundation. While it is perfectly ok for any community to use their own definitions in their communications and documents, prioritizing this source over secondary sources on Wikipedia would be giving it undue weight. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there is a difference between giving something undue weight and no weight. the other two editors in this discussion seem to want to give no weight to any sources outside the LOC source, even though its already been revealed that the LOC themself disagree with the page in question. Svnpenn (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the aspects of reliability of this Wikimedia Commons request for comments? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this question doesn't make sense, because the person asking the question has already publicly given the opinion that they feel LOC is a notable source Svnpenn (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEIGHT tells us to balance viewpoints based on the level of coverage in published reliable sources. No RS have been presented for the viewpoint you support, so no coverage can be given. VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sadly your comments consistently fail to reflect reality:
    1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
    2. https://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format
    3. https://opendefinition.org/ofd
    I was confused before by your level of confidence in your replies, but now I understand to look at the words themself rather than the tone. Svnpenn (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is clearly not an RS. The second two probably aren't either, but in any case it's WP:Syn to say MP4 is not an open format based on them since neither of them mention MP4. And just to re-iterate, private communications are not a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is an almost identical RFC at Talk:ISO base media file format. Please participate in both RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Talk:Open_file_format#RfC_on_requirements_defining_open_file_format. I have commented there. I don't think I want to copy my comments all three places. I think we should have a centralized discussion on this. It may be too late. :( ~Kvng (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In previous discussions, different arguments were raised for each of the three topics, so I started three independent RfCs, but I'm not opposed to merging them. I think the RfCs on MP4 and ISO BMFF are closely related, while the RfC on open file format has a broader scope. The only thing I think is worth discussing about ISO BMFF is that LOC describes it as "International standard, fully disclosed" while it describes MP4 as "Open standard." It seems that the two wouldn't be in the same situation, but ISO BMFF is also published by ISO, as is MP4, so I wonder if there's anything missing for the LOC to consider it an open standard like it considers MP4. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOC now confirms MP4 is not open[edit]

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. Note that we should avoid rushing to update the article as the changes may still be controversial to some editors while the RfC is ongoing.
Interestingly, the LOC update did not result in any changes to the "Last significant FDD update" field of the description, which is still at 25 April 2023 (13 months ago). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the MP4 article, as it was before your comment here. however I think its fine to leave the current version of MP4 page as is. I have not updated this page yet:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format
I am willing to wait to see any further developments on the RFC. however disturbingly, VQuakr has continued to revert MP4 article against the latest update to the reliable source. Svnpenn (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still says it's an open standard. It still should read yes in the infobox field. How about addition of a footnote explaining the additional commentary that's been added by LOC? VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> It still says it's an open standard
this page:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4_file_format
has the key OPEN FORMAT, not OPEN STANDARD. so the question of "is MP4 an open standard", that you seem to be trying to argue, has no bearing in this conversation. the question is "is MP4 an OPEN FORMAT". that question has been definitively answered now:
> it is not considered an open format
https://loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml
> How about addition of a footnote explaining the additional commentary that's been added by LOC?
I am open to simply removing the key, if people are uncomfortable with Wikipedia taking a position on the matter. but the format is open, that no longer a point to argue against. if someone wants to add a note about "open standard" they are welcome to do so. Svnpenn (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The LOC does indeed say it is "not considered an open format", and gives two reasons for saying that: "membership in national bodies is limited (for example, individuals are not eligible to join ANSI as members)" and "the specification documents are paywalled." It's not clear to me that either one of these reasons disqualifies MP4 from being considered an "open format" by Wikipedia's definition, which may differ from the LOC definition. Our article open format says "Depending on the definition, the specification of an open format may require a fee to access, so the issue of paywalling the spec seems irrelevant. Regarding the first issue, I believe the LOC is saying that they do not consider the format to be open because individuals cannot propose or discuss changes to the spec. Our open format article lists six specific definitions by various groups:
1. The Sun Microsystems definition includes "The format is developed through a publicly visible, community driven process, so the inability of individuals to contribute may disqualify MP4.
2. The UK government definition does not seem to preclude a standard simply because user input is limited.
3. The US government definition also does not seem to preclude a standard such as MP4.
4. The State of Minnesota is unclear; it does say "The format is controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard which is arguably true of MP4 except that a quibble could be made over the word "inclusive".
5. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts says an open format is "developed by an open community" which may disqualify MP4 but "open community" does not seem to be clearly defined [3].
6. The Linux Information Project does not seem to preclude MP4.
I would say that at best the status of MP4's classification as an open format is unclear and dependent on the definition used. Since it seems to be considered an open format by the majority of definitions, and most significantly by the US government, I would be inclined to report it as such. CodeTalker (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you cant really use Wikipedia as a reference for an argument, I already got shot down for that several times, on this very page. so tossing out all that off topic data, we are only left with this one source you have provided:
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2007-07-03-a.html
which by your own definition doesn't give a clear answer one way or another. so failing that, it still seems that the LOC link is the best source we have at this time, which is clear that MP4 is not an open format.
again, I will repeat my previous position that I feel "open format" key is vague, and should not even be included in the information box. however, if people insist that it should be included, then at this time "no" seems to be the clear answer to the question "is MP4 an open format". if you have actual sources in support of your view, I suggest you present them, as referring to Wikipedia is circular logic or synthetic, as has been detailed on this page several times. Svnpenn (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using Wikipedia as a reference, I'm using the definitions used by the six organizations I cited, which happen to be linked from the Wikipedia article. The only definition you've provided is the LOC one, which is certainly important enough to consider, but if it's contradicted by equally relevant sources, we have to take that into consideration. Do you have "open format" definitions by other organizations that you would like to also be considered? CodeTalker (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> The only definition you've provided is the LOC one
its clear you've not read the previous discussion on this issue, otherwise you would not have made a comment like this. I would suggest you actually read the previous discussion before commenting further. my original position was that the LOC link is not great, but the consensus seems to be that its the best source currently. saying "go look over there" is not a compelling argument. if you have better sources, you should provide them here, as the discussion is here. Svnpenn (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker: We have another RfC on criteria for open file formats at Talk:Open file format § RfC on requirements defining open file format. I think the input you provided here will be valuable there. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MP4_file_format&oldid=1227405332"