3 ms·
Surely making the codec open source isn't in itself that interesting, considering that x264 and FFmpeg form a high quality, open source codec for H.264? It's no
by spatulon 17y ago
Surely making the codec open source isn't in itself that interesting, considering that x264 and FFmpeg form a high quality, open source codec for H.264? It's not the code, but the spec that matters in spreading adoption of VP8. (Of course, publishing the code would create a de facto spec).
More interesting still is the patent issue. VP8 is still effectively irrelevant unless Google announces they've performed a patent search and found VP8 to have no known patents covering its methods (or at least any that might incur licensing fees). After all, it was the patent issue with H.264 that bothered Mozilla.
- jon_dahl 17y agox264 is a codec implementation, not a codec standard. The x264 source code is free, but what it produces isn't (at least in the US). Rumors are VP8 will be free on both counts. As for the patent issue, Google has no doubt done this during its ~9 months of due diligence while buying On2. Not saying that issues won't come up, but Google apparently felt comfortable with the situation.
- jaustin 17y agoI am confused as to why more people aren't asking this. If On2 were licensing any patents (for example, from one or more of the MPEGLA partners) in order to make VP8 possible, it's not important that Google has open sourced it unless they also somehow provide a free license to all the patents involved. I don't know enough about the industry to be able to predict whether On2 could have a technology in VP8 that they, and only they, have patents on. In that case, the ball is in Google's court. Otherwise, whoever owns the patents that On2 was licensing (or infringing?) still as a right to get royalties, right? Experts?