Openh264 Plugin Firefox
Charise Scrivner
Cisco provides an OpenH264 codec (as a source and a binary), which istheir of implementation H.264 codec, and they cover all licensing feesfor all parties using their binary. This codec allows you to use H.264in WebRTC with gstreamer and Firefox. It does not enable generic H.264playback, only WebRTC (see Mozilla bug 1057646).
A fedora-cisco-openh264 repository is distributed since Fedora 24 bydefault (if you have at least fedora-repos-24-0.5 package or newer).It contains OpenH264 binary built inside theFedora infrastructure, but distributed by Cisco, so that the alllicensing fees are still covered by them. This repository also containsOpenH264 plugins for gstreamer and Firefox. It is enabled by default sinceFedora 33 (if you have at least fedora-repos-33-0.3 package or newer).In order to install OpenH264, just install the plugins:
I disabled H264 under pluggins and the about:config settings all toggled to false. So far I have not found any reason to use this plugin.
I keep saved versions of Firefox, so going back to the previous versions is just reinstalling the version I want over the current one. Sometimes I make a new Profile.
I have seen in searching the internet, that you are not the only one having this problem with blank screens. Maybe Firefox will correct this?
I also use the free HitmanPro.Alert (which includes CryptoGuard) to protect my browsers so if you find v32.0.3 is the only viable version for you, then use it and install HitmanPro.Alert as an added measure.
Nowadays all websites are trying to move away from Adobe Flash to HTML5 video.
YouTube automatically uses HTML5 player in chrome, but firefox uses Adobe Flash because firefox was not ready for H264 decoding for lack of an openly available H264 decoder and Mozilla couldnt build their own due to Patent and License issues. After much convincing Cisco open sourced a decoder after purchasing a license for building a decoder from MPEG-LA.
I used the instructions in -openh264-firefox/ to help install the files manually and I have tested it with all other plugins and add-ons disabled with no success. Any ideas on what I can try next or is this a known problem with Waterfox?
The video streams are decoded by system wide OpenH264 2.1.1 which is shipped by Fedora as mozilla-openh264 rpm package. Even if Mozilla OpenH264 (1.8.1) plugin is installed in your profile and claimed at about:plugins page, the Fedora system one is used.
A fedora-cisco-openh264 repository is distributed since Fedora 24 by default (if you have at least fedora-repos-24-0.5 package or newer). It contains OpenH264 binary built inside the Fedora infrastructure, but distributed by Cisco, so that the all licensing fees are still covered by them. This repository also contains OpenH264 plugins for gstreamer and Firefox. It is enabled by default since Fedora 33. However, if it is not enabled for whatever reason, you can enable it:
Cisco's binary license agreement requires that the license is presented to the user, but it is not included in the Licensing Information or End User Rights that come with Firefox. It is linked from the Add-Ons Manager, but not from about:plugins.
I think we need some other solution which is not an implicit software download. For Flash, Firefox prompts the user explicitly before downloading it. Unfortunately, this does not work (which is not a Fedora-specific bug), so I don't know if there is a clear indicator to the user that they are installing software which does not conform to the Fedora packaging guidelines. But if the Flash approach is acceptable in principle, this could be a solution for OpenH264 as well.
I'm not sure how useful OpenH264 is on its own because it's just a video codec, and I suspect that most H.264 uses will come with audio streams which use codecs not part of Fedora and not downloaded by Firefox.
As with all AVC/H.264 codecs, you may also obtain your own patent license from MPEG LA or from the individual patent owners, or proceed at your own risk. Your rights from Cisco under the BSD license are not affected by this choice.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
The binary form of this Software is distributed by Cisco under the AVC/H.264 Patent Portfolio License from MPEG LA, and is subject to the following requirements, which may or may not be applicable to your use of this software:
Accordingly, please be advised that content providers and broadcasters using AVC/H.264 in their service may be required to obtain a separate use license from MPEG LA, referred to as "(b) sublicenses" in the SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS from MPEG LA found at
Any third-party software that makes use of the Cisco-provided binary must reproduce all of the above text, as well as this last condition, in the EULA and/or in another location where licensing information is to be presented to the end user.
#info Regarding the earlier discussion on OpenH264, if Fedora community members have a project in Fedora that is intending to use OpenH264 in some way, please talk to FESCo before integrating code to use it.
In recent discussion about theming, Firefox developers reached out to us and expressed interest in being flexible. The branding restrictions are really intended to stop bad actors. Despite the decision to do this in a way that may be different from what Fedora chooses, I think we're all basically on the same side here and I'm optimistic that we can find something that works.
I'm not FESCo, but I'd argue that this is a f21 release blocker, in that it clearly violates the Packaging Guideline that requires all software be built from source. If Firefox is just going to auto-download a binary on startup, it's functionally equivalent to if it shipped it.
As far as I know, the codec is only usable for WebRTC video chat streaming. While that is useful, it isn't as popular as simple HD videos streams. I believe the audio side of the streams aren't covered either. So patching this out for now does not seem like a huge loss of functionality even ignoring the legal side of things.
As far as I know, the codec is only usable for WebRTC video chat streaming. While that is >useful, it isn't as popular as simple HD videos streams. I believe the audio side of the >streams aren't covered either. So patching this out for now does not seem like a huge loss >of functionality even ignoring the legal side of things.
I don't think that this makes any sense not only do we usually not block the release for "violations of the package guidelines" but in that case the change is already in F20 (Firefox gets updated in all branches). So while we have to resolve this I disagree that it should block the release. The only thing that this gains us is to put pressure on the Firefox maintainers ... but this shouldn't be the way we deal with things.
I don't propose we add an exception for this, but I do want to recognize that this is a somewhat unique binary-software situation, as the source code is available under a BSD license ( ) and [ -now-in-firefox/ Mozilla says]:
Mozilla and Cisco have established a process by which the binary is verified as having been built from the publicly available source, thereby enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of the system.
In any case, I don't think the situation is directly comparable to the Flash player and am sympathetic to making the process pain-free for users who want to make this choice. On the other hand, I do think that a choice should be involved.
My understanding (althought I don't want to speak for firefox maintainers) is that they would be fine with such a solution, provided the code for it was written and accepted upstream. There is no such code currently, nor I think do they have desire to write such.
I know my opinion doesn't carry much weight, but I'm also interested in this and I thought I could contribute from a user standpoint. I don't like -much less trust- closed source stuff and I hate myself whenever I am forced to install something like adobe flash, or binary drivers for any reason whatsoever.[[BR]]
Now the problem with OpenH264 isn't that it's closed source, rather than we trust somebody else to vet, compile, package and distribute it. What if that was done in-house and on first run or when a user came across a scenario that would require the plugin, they were offered to install an rpm from Fedora? I'm not that technically versed, but having seen Canonical's (and others') modifications, it would seem feasible. We could have ''media.gmp-gmpopenh264.provider.enabled'' set to false (there seem to be a couple more relevant options in Aurora) and maybe write a Fedora-specific Firefox add-on to detect the need for the plugin which could also allow them to disable/enable it at will.