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

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Fri, 01 November 2013 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
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 4523111E8229 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 BK09WeCLIBCP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpdb6.aruba.it (smtpdb6.aruba.it [62.149.158.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4289511E8210 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lminiero ([82.49.174.20]) by smtpcmd02.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id kHUW1m00X0SmHqA01HUWnU; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:28:32 +0100
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:28:27 +0100
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Message-ID: <20131101182827.52f1a0c1@lminiero>
In-Reply-To: <CAPvvaaLwacOgQq5O8t0bMCJJfKTHbJM9RnawgXLJpKiADtsi2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPvvaaLwacOgQq5O8t0bMCJJfKTHbJM9RnawgXLJpKiADtsi2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.19; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 17:28:42 -0000

Il giorno Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:19:25 +0100
Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> ha scritto:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> >> <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> 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.
> 
> It would be nice for Mozilla to comment then. They wouldn't have been
> required to statically link against it or even distribute it. It is
> already possible to use GPL plug-ins with Firefox, so why is x264 an
> insurmountable problem?
> 
> Emil
> 

Maybe because it is already available and compared. Announcements and
claims work much better when you don't have to actually show anything.

Lorenzo