Talk:MP4 file format/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I removed the following block because this this is talking about the MP4 container, which has nothing to do with the MP3 format. Peter Nelson 01:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

*.mp4 is most commonly used as the alternative to *.mp3 on an Apple iPod and in iTunes. The quality of the AAC codec that is stored in *.mp4 is higher than MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, although not as widely used in computer and hardware players as the *.mp3.

Open Standard? License?

What is the license for using the MP4 container format, do you have to pay royalties? Is MP4 an open standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.148.180 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Compression Ratio and listening tests?

This article needs some statistics on compression ratio and listening test data. I'm trying to determine how an X-bitrate mp4 might compare to a Y-bitrate mp3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.0.41 (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Improvments over .mov ?

Just looking at the comparison of container formats page, it appears that not only does mov have all of the features of mpeg-4, but that it actually has more features than mpeg-4. Unless someone can write what these "Improvements" are, I'm going to remove that phrase. -Ctachme 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparision with mp3

I think the article would benefit by drawing a distinct line between mp3 and mp4. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding players which are capable of mp3 playback and mp4 playback. Chris 13:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much info

Methinks this should be expanded. Is it just me or is there no info on MP4 on the Web?? Junkbot44 14:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Download

How do you download the song?

Help

You probably need to get a file converter. You can get one free at download.com, and convert them into something that your MP4 Player recognizes. If not- try contacting the manufactuer.

Also- I recently bought a MP4 Player. Somebody ought to submit a whole new article about this. This doesn't help at all.

MP4 Devices and marketing

There's a lot of marketing of "MP4 players" . They are marketing them as superior devices over MP· Players just because the MP4 number over the MP3 one. These should be discussed here in my opinion. 6:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? Chinese MP4/MTV Player --Mcoder 11:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

m4r VS m4a

I was reading the part about how iPhone uses ringtones with an m4r extension, instead of an m4a extension. If you made an m4r file (in iTunes, for example), would this work with other phones that support using custom ringtones? Or would you have to change it to an m4a file, and if you do have to change it, can you just change the file name as described for changing audiobooks from m4a to m4b, or do you need a special converter program (if one were to exist)? Thanks for any help. 69.204.194.148 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Status of "MP4" abbreviation

The term MP4 is not an official synonym of MPEG-4 or the standard file extension for MPEG-4 format files. By contrast "MP3" is the de facto standard file extension ".MP3" for MPEG-3 format files. Hence the more general use of the term "MP4 player" for all video players is not technically incorrect, although it risks people making the assumption that MPEG-4 format files will be supported directly.Elroch (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

different types

you have different types of mp4 file extensions such as .m4a,.m4b and so on. should not those also be included under file extension? SubaruSVX (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Playstation Portable XMB?

If the Playstation Portable XMB is part of the software that supports MPEG-4 file types, then why isn't the iPod and Zune softwware also incuded? Why is the Playstation Portable XMB on there in the first place? Eugeniu B (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

comparison between mp3 and mp4 audio files useless

In the comparision between an mp3 files (at 320Kbps) and an mp4 file (at 128 Kbps) is useless. First of all most people rip for 128 Kbps for either format anyway (in my experience) and the wast majority of commercially available mp3 files are no better than 128 Kbps. More importantly, comparing the size of two audio files compressed using different audio formats as well as different compression rates is completely useless as it says nothing about the differences between the two.

I can easily reduce the size of a 320Kbps mp3 file, by simply recoding it at a lower bitrate. If a file takes up 7 MiB at 320 Kbps, it should be reduced to about 3 MiB at 128 Kbps (It is quite normal for mp3 files containing standard 3 minute songs to be about this size at 128 Kbps). FrederikHertzum (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Add VC-1, fragmented MPEG-4?

I'm involved in these efforts, so didn't want to edit directly. But there's a couple newer things that Microsoft is doing with the MPEG-4 file format that perhaps should be mentioned here.

The new Smooth Streaming format uses either VC-1 and WMA or H.264 and AAC payload inside of a fragmented MPEG-4 file. Fragmented is supported mode in the Part 14 spec where there can be a 'moof' header periodically referencing just a small section of video, instead of having a single header for the entire file.

Also, as VC-1 is being used for this, and as there has long been a specification for VC-1 inside MPEG-4, it shoud probably be listed as a supported codec. There isn't a formal mapping for WMA.

Some references:

Fragmented MPEG-4 implementation details: [1]

List of overview links: [2]

Sample content in fMP4 using VC-1 and WMA: [3]

Ben Waggoner, March 21st, 2009 97.120.194.158 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is about ISO base media file format and not about MP4 file format. It is very questionable, if every compression format registered by MP4 Registration authority will be supported by common MP4 players. In addition, WMA is not registered compression format. I think that in supported compression formats should be only those widely supported.--89.173.68.106 (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I am surprised that there is no description of the metadata tags for mp4 / m4a ... it seems that some of the mp3 tag editors can read the mp4 tags ... so they exist, but they are not described or defined in this article.

Also, for some reason, neither Windows XP nor Windows Vista "see" these tags. While it is possible in Windows Explorer (formerly File Manager) to display various file attributes such as "Title" "album" "Genre" and so on, these are always blank, even though various tag editors and media players display these tags.

This article needs expanding to describe the metadata tags and to note that for some unfathomable reason, Microsoft Windows is unable to read or edit these tags ... giving the false impression that there are no tags. Also, I am left wondering why Windows Explorer falsely indicates that there are either no tags (displays blanks). If Microsoft is unable to read these tags, the respective tag columns should be greyed-out. At least that way, the user has some indication that the data may exist, but cannot be viewed.

Enquire (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

M4V merged into MPEG-4 Part 14

It shouldnt happen

M4V is a completely different standard to MP4. It has different purposes and unlike MP4, M4V contains only H.264, AAC and AC-3. MP4 only holds MPEG-4, H.264 and AAC.

M4V is proprietary for Itunes whereas MP4 is an international standard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.255.246 (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 92.40.225.246, merging it causes confusion with MP4. It needs to remain at its own page. GEORGIEGIBBONS —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

m4v will stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.176.203 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia article

This article, the way it is written, is way too complicated for an encyclopedia. The average person reading it will have no idea what it is talking about and will not be able to get anything useful from the article.

For example: "MPEG-4 Part 14 is an instance of more general ISO/IEC 14496-12:2004 (MPEG-4 Part 12: ISO base media file format) which is directly based upon Apple’s QuickTime container format.[2][3][4][5][6] MPEG-4 Part 14 is essentially identical to the MOV format, but formally specifies support for Initial Object Descriptors (IOD) and other MPEG features.[7] MPEG-4 Part 14 revises and completely replaces Clause 13 of ISO/IEC 14496-1 (MPEG-4 Part 1: Systems), in which the file format for MPEG-4 content was previously specified.[8]"

Now, what is the average person supposed to do with that information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinjefferson (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant information regarding the reason for popularity of the M4A extension in the '.MP4 versus .M4A file extensions' section. Sony's PSP and Nintendo's DSi were not major contributors to the popularity of this extension, they are simply capable of playback - among thousands of other pieces of hardware which would be pointless to list. --118.93.7.60 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose change of MP4 term redirect to MP4 player

I came to this page to find out about how the term MP4 is used, specifically by shops in the UK. The article does not try to address this (at present you have to go to MP4 disambiguation, and then to *Chinese* MP4 Players to find the explanation of its use in mainstream publications - the reference to MP4 players being chinese was just too much to let go and I have removed this as clearly the manufactures come from all countries). There are many examples in publications of MP4 being used to mean a category of video media player, here are three articles I found in a couple of minutes:

http://stuff.tv/Reviews/MP3-MP4-Reviews/

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20101129-901145.html

http://www.t3.com/feature/top-10-mp4-players

I propose to alter MP4 to redirect to MP4 Player, and that this article covering the less well known .mp4 file extension (and also often referred to as h.264 files rather than .mp4 files) be listed on the mp4 disambiguation page (and a link to that from the MP4 player page). I know I am unlikely to get universal agreement on this but when it is use in popular publications is different to how it is treated by wikipedia I think change is needed. Fuzzything (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is not clear that the file format is the dominant use of the term. I'm not convinced that MP4 should redirect to MP4 player. I support a compromise solution to rename the disambiguation page: MP4 (disambiguation) -> MP4. --Kvng (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

MP4 vs. MXF

Can someone in the know compare MP4 with MXF? I am particularly interested in the reasons that caused Sony to chose MP4 for its XDCAM EX camcorders (2008) whereas it used MXF in older models (from 2003). Mikus (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Phones

A section talking about which mobile phones support Mp4 format will be useful.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong abbreviations given

2 wrong abbreviation. One was about Lossless Apple lossles format (in mp4 vs m4a section) and other one toward the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav075 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Advertisements

Please remove advertisements in references 2 and 3 if they are. Sky6t (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

DRM

"M4P is a protected format which employs DRM technology to restrict copying."

Please add a section to answer the following, since people who buy music should want to know what they are getting:

Is there any chance, for example if who you bought it from goes out of business and no longer offers their DRM'ed codecs or if the technology is abandoned long in the future in favor of the next big thing, that the music files you bought will stop working?

Is the DRM entirely on the analog form after decompression, as in giving everyone a slightly different sound that usually only machines can detect? Or does the DRM extend to blocking certain players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.104.85 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster

Sources written by Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster need to be double checked (and possibly deleted) as per VDM Publishing § Wikipedia content duplication. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

typo

I think is not part 14, is part 12 of the ISO standard, I mean, is not ISO/IEC 14496-14, is ISO/IEC 14496-12, for example ISO/IEC 14496-12:2012

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MPEG-4 Part 14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007071048/http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/C.S0050-B_v1.0_070521.pdf to http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/C.S0050-B_v1.0_070521.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Malware?

Are there any known .mp4 exploits that should be discussed? I have found only vague warnings about it, particularly because of it's "container" nature, but nothing concrete. If anyone has any knowledge about such things, it almost certainly deserves a section within here, or a link to a similar section within the mpeg page, no?Tgm1024 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it really an open format?

I can't find a source for that. Is this about MP4 file format version 1? Released in 2001 so patents have expired. --Tuxayo (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It is open (there's a public specification) but not free (license fees apply in some situations). I fixed that. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to MP4 file format. Consesus to move to MP4 file format. MP4 still be the primary topic of this article, thus be redirected accordingly. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

---

MPEG-4 Part 14 → MP4 – WP:COMMONNAME, already redirects here. I don't personally see why it should be titled as the technical name that nobody knows it by, unlike MP3. Lazz_R 14:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to MP4 file format: See the second and third paragraphs of the article, which refer to it, correctly, as the "MP4 file format". The name I suggest would clarify that this article is about a file format, and it would avoid confusion with other MPEG-4 topics, such as MPEG-4 Audio and MPEG-4 Visual. There is some of that confusion here on the talk page, such as in the sections called #Compression Ratio and listening tests? and #Comparision with mp3. In contrast to MP3, this is not a particular way of compressing audio or video – it is a container file format that can contain things that are compressed in many different ways. Mulligatawny (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed that "MP4" is definitely more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than the current title, but Mulligatawny also raises a convincing point about "MP4 file format" incorporating the recognizable name without losing WP:PRECISION. Thus, my top choice is to move to MP4 file format, with a secondary preference for the move as first proposed. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – @Mulligatawny and ModernDayTrilobite: If we were to move the article to "MP4 file format", would you propose that the article remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "MP4" and thus "MP4" would continue to redirect here? Graham (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that'd be the best call, yeah. I took a look at MP4 (disambiguation) and the file format seems very likely to be the primary topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3GPP is based upon ISO/IEC 14496-12 not 14

3GPP as numeros docs that you can find in the 3gp website is based upon MPEG4/JPEG2000 Part 12 file format (also know as ISO media base file). MPEG-4 Part 14 is derivated from the Part 12 just like the 3GPP file format do. So I correct this line: "3G mobile phones use 3GP, a simplified version of MPEG-4 Part 14, with the .3gp and .3g2 extensions. These files also store non-MPEG-4 data (H.263, AMR, TX3G)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.75.198.69 (talk • contribs) 14:29, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

AC3 in Nero Digital?!?! LOL

I'm the guy that made the changes to the 3GPP description. Nero Digital supports AC3 in MP4?!?! Don't make me laugh! It supports Vobsubs in MP4, it doesn't support AC3 at all. It supports also chapters, via UDTA, it doesn't use a private stream for it (while in the M4B is possible to place chapters with the text stream (that it's not a private stream, it's definited in the mp4 standards, at least Apple says so in their www.mp4ra.org website). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.75.198.69 (talk • contribs) 14:36, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

Podcasts/m4b

"Audiobook and podcast files, which also contain metadata including chapter markers, images, and hyperlinks, can use the extension .m4a, but more commonly use the .m4b extension."

I'm an avid podcast listener for over a decade. I have never encountered an .m4b file. Podcasts certainly don't "more commonly use the .m4b extension". 93.206.191.47 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

> 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)

@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 [4], doesn't it? VQuakr (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

That's what we need to make the assessment, opinions and assessments of third parties. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

> 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)

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)

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)

I mentioned Open standard § Comparison of definitions four times. This article has 73 references. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Are you admitting you are not assuming good faith? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a great example of why we avoid circular references and original synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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 [5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

> 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)

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)

@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)

My apologies. The intention was to give a lighter tone to an apparently tense discussion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

I too am offended by your baseless accusations. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MP4_file_format#MP4_and_ISOBMFF_are_not_open_formats --Svnpenn (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [6] 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)

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)

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 (18 months ago). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

> 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)

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 [7].
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)

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)

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)

> 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)

@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)

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:

• Talk:Open file format § RfC on requirements defining open file format
• Talk:ISO base media file format § RfC on whether ISO BMFF is an open format

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

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)

@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)

are you saying the Library of Congress is not a reliable source? Svnpenn (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

• [8] 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Commons is, of course, also not a source per WP:USERGENERATED. VQuakr (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  > 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)

  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)

  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)

  What are the aspects of reliability of this Wikimedia Commons request for comments? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

Regarding the in-article comments

I've removed the HTML comments that were inside the article, as I thought they should not have been there.
Regarding the comments themselves, I don't think there's any confusion happening; the raw audio format exists and has an article here, and there is an extension linked. Seems to match up for me, but I'd like corrections. Gmestanley (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)