[whatwg] forwarded: Google opens VP8 video codec
Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ)
ngompa13 at gmail.com
Wed May 19 21:48:15 PDT 2010
2010/5/19 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com>
> 2010/5/20 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) <ngompa13 at gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:38 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 20 May 2010 00:34, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
> >> <nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
> >> > James Salsman <jsalsman at talknicer.com> schrieb am Wed, 19 May 2010
> >> > 14:58:38 -0700:
> >> >> > Container will be .webm, a modified version of Matroshka. Audio is
> >> >> > Ogg Vorbis.
> >> > You mean Vorbis. </pedantic> ;)
> >> *cough*
> >> x264 don't think much of VP8, they think it's just not ready:
> >> http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377
> >> OTOH, that may not end up mattering.
> >> - d.
> > Given that the main reason against Theora was the fact that hardware
> > supported baseline profile H.264 (which looks terrible compared to the
> > profiles), I think VP8 may be fine. VP8 already has hardware decoder chip
> > support, so that isn't an issue. Patents aren't an issue, since Google
> > dealt with that.
> Apologies, but how has Google dealt with patents? They make the ones
> they bought from On2 available for free - which is exactly the same
> situation as for Theora. They don't indemnify anyone using WebM.
> However, I do appreciate that for any commercial entity having to
> chose between the patent risk on Theora and the one on WebM, it is an
> easy choice, because Google would join such a courtcase for WebM and
> their massive financial status just doesn't compare to Xiph's. ;-)
Google's patent license states that anyone that attempts to sue over VP8
will automatically lose their patent license. That's a huge deterrent.
AFAIR, the VC-1 codec didn't have that kind of clause, which caused the
debacle that led to the VC-1 patent pool...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg