[mythtv-users] H265 support
dennis
deg at outlook.com
Sat Apr 11 18:46:37 UTC 2015
I agree, but the patent issues has always been there, way back
including the gif/jpg standards.
From what I have seen, most patent owners don't try to stop open source
software implementation of standards. It actually helps them with
development and gain wider acceptance. Do they care if a early adaptor
plays a H265 file using VLC? Probably not.
Embed it in a chip on a TV, or video card, or hand held device,
commercial software and its a different story. If someone tries to sell
a product that uses it, that's when the patent holders demand money.
> Whether one agrees with software (algorithm) patents or not,
> the fact is that they exist, and are enforceable, in a number
> of jurisdictions. H.265 is filled with a number of patents that
> appear, at first read, to be either obvious, or overly broad.
> However, now that the patents have been granted, and
> codified as part of the standard, the FRAND licensing and
> pricing comes into play. And FOSS does not play well
> with FRAND.
>
> To provide a (theoretical, and absolutely not accurate)
> example, say a popular web browser decided to embed
> a software based H.265 player. By the terms of the GPL,
> they would be responsible for paying for the patent licensing
> for everyone who used it. Let us say that browser currently
> has about a 15% share. With ~3 billion Internet users
> (some may share devices, but lets go with it), that means
> the company owes the patent owners about $180 million
> dollars (no, none of those numbers are correct, but you get
> the order of magnitude of the issue). And while a company
> with deep pockets may be able to absorb such payments and
> include a player in their software, not so much for all other
> organizations. A common "work around" is to launch an
> external player. Let someone else pay the royalty (also
> works with using hardware based decoding, where someone
> else has paid for the hardware license). But now your
> software may not work equally well (or at all) on all platforms.
> Note that that video codec license does not include the
> audio codec license fees (that may be the same, or more)
> (you want audio with that video?)
>
> It should be noted that Cisco, in order to address the
> discussion over choice of codec for WebRTC, is paying
> for a license for H.264 (as long as you use their binary).
> That was extreme goodness for WebRTC deployment in
> FOSS projects. But that does not address all current
> H.264 uses (it is only the constrained profile, as I recall).
>
> Mozilla (and others) continue to push for a true unencumbered
> set of codecs (daala), but history shows that avoiding all patents
> (given the large number of patents out there that are overly
> broad) is not an easy task, and gaining industry adoption is
> likely even harder (and if no one supports you, you have failed).
>
> So, for those that believe that codecs should be free,
> H.265 and H.264, and .... are simply evil, and worse,
> promote future evil by being adopted.
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
> MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
>
>
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list