2 ms·
> H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay). That's pretty much discriminating against a wide range of s
by vetinari 10y ago
> H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay).
That's pretty much discriminating against a wide range of software - namely Free and Open Source. VP9 on the other hand, is compatible with a such development model.
- kuschku 10y agoSure, yet VP9 is discriminating against about every startup with innovative patented algorithms that also wants to support VP.9 At the example of Pied Piper from SiliconValley: If they used VP.9 for video encoding before compressing and sending it, Google/hooli would now have the right to use their (potentially) patented algorithm for whatever they want, without ever getting sued. Now that's great, eh?
- vetinari 10y agoThe VPx cross-license does not work that way. You are granted patents to use VPx (you can not use these patents outside VPx scope) and you are granting patents necessary to use VPx[1]. If you have some other patents that are not necessary for the VPx, they are not subject of the cross-license. [1] - "that must necessarily be infringed by the act of Exploiting Licensed Products in the Licensed Field of Use"