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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Lorenzo Miniero <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:18:37 -0400
> Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> 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.
> > >
> >
> > Yes.  There are two, orthogonal benefits of the Cisco proposal:
> > 1. Save on coding: Source code you can use in any way (even
> > GPL-incompatible), but you have to pay
> > 2. Save on licenses: Binary code you can use in download-from-Cisco
> > pattern, and Cisco pays
> >
>
>
> How is 1. a benefit exactly? I can already do that with other codecs for
> free.
>

Meant it was a benefit relative to the prior state for H.264, since x264 is
GPL (don't know if there are others).

--Richard



> Lorenzo
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Emil
> > >
> > > --
> > > https://jitsi.org
> > >
>
>
> --
> Lorenzo Miniero, COB
>
> Meetecho s.r.l.
> Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
> http://www.meetecho.com
>