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

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[e-mail]>]

On 11/1/13 5:35 PM, Max Jonas Werner wrote:
> On 01.11.2013 17:24, cowwoc wrote:
>> On 01/11/2013 12:19 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Can I dynamically link x264 against my proprietary application without
>> having to GPL it?
> Actually no: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
>
> That's why the LGPL (that poses other risks, though) exists.
GPL constraints about open sourcing are for the case when distributing 
the application. You can link anything you want with gpl code and you 
don't have to make the sources available if you don't distribute your 
application.

I think that Emil wanted to say that we, users, don't distribute web 
browsers, we just use them.

Then, if I got it right, no browser will link against the h264 plugin. 
That will be loaded at user will (eventually), by downloading on demand 
from cisco site.

So I, as user, I take Firefox from Mozilla site, then when I need to do 
webrtc, my browser will download (first time) and use the h264 plugin. 
Because I don't distribute further the two, I don't see any restriction 
from gpl here. That's my understanding.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28
   - more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -