4 ms·
Cisco will release the source code, but according to the H264 licensing terms Cisco has to be the one to distribute the resultant binary if Cisco is to pay for
by mpyne 13y ago
Cisco will release the source code, but according to the H264 licensing terms Cisco has to be the one to distribute the resultant binary if Cisco is to pay for the license.
It would be good for others to independently verify that Cisco's source compiles to Cisco's binary, but that still wouldn't give legal permission for those others to distribute the binary -- only Cisco can do that.
- e12e 13y agoWhat's more interesting is if this will allow end-user to compile a binary for personal use. If the build scripts works as well as eg: most c-extentions for python (so you can do like the equivalent on debian for mercurial: apt-get build-dep mercurial; virtualenv --no-site-packages test;cd test;./bin/pip install mercurial -- and have it just work) -- a real "loophole" might actually present itself in the licensing. It still wouldn't be quite as easy on Windows (even if it builds with a free and/or gratis compiler there) -- but on all platforms building a plugin (automagically) should be much more feasible than for "everyone" to build Firefox (that thing is a monster).
- mpyne 13y agoUnfortunately as far as I understand it you're only "licensed" to use the codec if you receive the binary directly from Cisco... even if you manage to compile a bit-for-bit identical equivalent. You'd surely get away with it as a personal-use thing but I doubt distros would automate it for you.