Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> That ownership means they are also take responsibility for any of the liabilities arising
>> from defective code they so distribute. I see no reason why Cisco would want to do
>> that under anything but a controlled evironment, which would have its own set of
>> non-trivial costs.
> 
> They could have the same by distributing x264 binaries that they have
> compiled by themselves.
> 
> One of the things in the Cisco grand, that sound a bit incoherent to
> me is their declared will on building a healthy open source community
> around their implementation. Specifically, what baffles me is that
> there is already a very well oiled implementation that does a lot more
> than just baseline. That implementation already has a vibrant
> community, significant popularity and, again, it sounds like it would
> be considerably superior to what Cisco are planning on rolling out in
> OpenH264.
> 
> In addition to wondering at the pure waste of resources (with a casual
> reference to NIH), potential contributors could legitimately ask "why
> would we contribute to your project when you made the exact opposite
> choice when faced with the decision?".
> 
> Emil

We considered just using x264 (I like x264 myself) that but Mozilla told us it would not work for them because it is GPL.