[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