Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Aug 2010 13:22 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 438314
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
There are two definitions of free and i think its important people identifying what "free" they are using when making arguments for or against h.264 and any other competing media technologies.
definition 1: Free as does not have any patents and no royalties required for implementing the specification and no restrictions are imposed on how the implementor can distribute the implementation..
definition 2: Free as the technology is available in a non discriminatory way and anybody who care to implement the technology can do so after they pay for royalties if required and agree to licensing terms if present
both h,264 and vp8 are free by the second definition but only vp8 is free with the first.
definition 1: Free as does not have any patents and no royalties required for implementing the specification and no restrictions are imposed on how the implementor can distribute the implementation..
(...) only vp8 is free with the first.
(...) only vp8 is free with the first.
According to the guy who developed the VP8 decoder for ffmpeg, VP8 and h264 are very similar. He even called VP8 a derivateve of h264 Baseline.
Why should patents apply to h264 but not VP8?





Member since:
2006-01-18
its not free but at least it doesn't cost money! </sarcasm>