[Ffmpeg-devel] why not have h264encoder in the libavcodec?

Guilhem Tardy gravsten
Tue Nov 15 08:07:44 CET 2005


There were many good points made last week about h264 encoder for FFMPEG.

I especially appreciated Luca Barbato's comment:

> The point of lgpl and gpl is in fact respectively foster
> the usage or foster the free software development.

>From the prompt release of x264 stubs for FFMPEG last time this issue of a LGPL
H.264 encoder was discussed here (spring 2005), I conclude that the x264 team
wants their library to be used as widely as possible.

And the debate of last week showed that some contributors to both x264 and
FFMPEG (e.g. Mike Melanson) are open to the LGPL.

I would also expect (as shown in countless previous posts) that the FFMPEG team
would prefer a "native" H.264 codec (whether LGPL or GPL) compared to stubs for
an external library such as x264.

Since the H.264 decoder is well advanced and stable, I would think that adding
the missing bits and pieces for an encoder (at least with minimum optional
features) is not entirely impossible. In that, the x264 source code could help
simplify the task.

Obviously, licensing is an important matter (unless you reside in one of those
few countries where IP laws are inexistant or widely ignored).

But I have the feeling that it was not the right place to ask for a
clear/definitive statement from the x264 team as a whole. Could anyone forward
this enquiry to the appropriate people?


Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list