[Ffmpeg-devel] why not have h264

Rich Felker dalias
Wed Nov 9 21:42:08 CET 2005

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 06:34:12AM -0800, Guilhem Tardy wrote:
> Hi,
> > Is it necessary that the whole encoder needs to be rewritten
> > using LGPL as a license or can (parts or whole of) the x264
> > encoder be "relicensed"?
> This issue was raised on the FFMPEG mailing list last spring, and if I recall
> the consensus was that x264 developers who participate to this mailing list
> agreed to x264 source code being used and relicensed under LGPL as part of a
> "native" H.264 codec. I couldn't say about other x264 developers.
> > > The H264 codec is quite complicated, and I think it will still
> > > take some time before someone writes a GPL version of the codec.
> > > It's  still a lot of work i suspect.
> > 
> > I think quite some people are willing to spend time on improving
> > and testing the H264 encoder if the license is changed to LGPL.
> No company would put resources into anything GPL. This is not to start a flame
> or any other form of debate, so please consider this statement as my personal
> opinion.

This is nonsense:

Company putting resources into GPL code => their competitors cannot
take advantage of the code without contributing back.

Company putting resources into LGPL or BSD code => their competitors
can take advantage of it and get competitive edge by making their
derived works proprietary.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list