Re: [rtcweb] x264 vs OpenH264 (Was: On the topic of MTI video codecs)

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Fri, 01 November 2013 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BA411E821C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1w8Qw3mC2AL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com (mail-pb0-f49.google.com [209.85.160.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D50611E8222 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id xb4so4535205pbc.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Lqz29JmHuMOaHc2X5f+XkL43KMZO3klcZToS4JzGYWQ=; b=YO1/LlNQYlk4iCpD6kbuPbS/WF4bX19jwzcGW9PR33ewUOv6GokBSc8E55+C6ARR2J rmaBsZG/pj7dk7Ssim27eYi9fckwQDD5DkNUEvd6Hm+efSB0HxBds7cTc4mtTQX5Y0ey Ms7YAGff1AMJjnJHiQmVCdnDFM/hSwcCI4JkEdU7iGkOW4a338WhVd1mu0DnkP067aeI FpR3iw5Fu699gFuGQuOfBIe9PnuUMCaYsFVtF+w8Kn5pSu1ZNY5z8f2CL7l9uqkkOw7W VD8Yo0sAJGfYQLgHonHt+jccKZtJmWD1hYoYE/KGlirB3OfQlCrH0kQDo1FRgTwYXMhU K0Kw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLQmXVlT3IOatOCgf6F9Mf+rXR7BfVdlZHsQENzATvEQYyDU0zzjtlJ6hk9yIoNg1Do3Rj
X-Received: by 10.68.66.33 with SMTP id c1mr4224556pbt.73.1383326136531; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ho3sm11929006pbb.23.2013.11.01.10.15.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb1so4322014pad.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.68.59.202 with SMTP id b10mr4283896pbr.78.1383326135846; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.191.163 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRDmjKVJZT-jvxxnnwyYXNtYUWo9hL28YVX6OopVbE4MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPvvaaLwacOgQq5O8t0bMCJJfKTHbJM9RnawgXLJpKiADtsi2Q@mail.gmail.com> <14789922-BEC6-460B-ABB0-092D63237BBF@edvina.net> <CAPvvaaJ5rTgt1MTNYUEBhhd-t4HNeRkjS4uuTegmJftTLGYcCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRDmjKVJZT-jvxxnnwyYXNtYUWo9hL28YVX6OopVbE4MQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 18:15:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaJJvVwdiX3dPP+pKyLpomW0eM9h0M_gzQF+CNLGt1eLrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] x264 vs OpenH264 (Was: On the topic of MTI video codecs)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:15:55 -0000

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
> IIUC, by providing a BSD implementation, developers will be able to build
> the library directly into their apps, if they're willing to accept the
> MPEG-LA restrictions.  This could be helpful for developers who are willing
> to pay the license fees, or who are too small to be required to pay the
> license (think I had head 100k users).  The BSD licensed implementation
> means that those developers don't have to either (1) bother with the Cisco
> song and dance or (2) worry about GPL restrictions.

True, but both (1) and (2) would be possible with x264. What you gain
with the BSD license is the possibility to distribute it yourself with
non-GPL compatible code, in which case however you lose the Cisco
grant on the patent anyway.

Emil

--
https://jitsi.org