On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 16:21 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Hi, > > This bug has now been left unanswered since *14* months now. From > private discussion with two DPLs, a very short phone call at the > ftp-master meeting in October 2009 (without any concrete results), until > now I have *guessed* that that ftp-master was very concerned about > redistributing software using MPEG related software.
For MPEG related software we know that there are patents and that you have to pay for them. For VP8 we know that Google might own patents and gives everybody the right to use them. > However, on 28. May 2010, ftp-master did ACCEPT the package libvpx in > the Debian archive. This package includes software to decode *and* encode > google's new VP8 codec, as well as WEBM, a container format based on > matroska. An analysis that shows that VP8 is very similar to h264 has > been published by Jason Garrett-Glaser, a primary x264 developer: > > http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377 > > He explains detail his concerns why he thinks that VP8 is too similar to > be free of patent concerns. Quoting from this article: > > [...] That's what someone else says about this issue: http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/50239.html?thread=135231#t135231 > And indeed, there is very strong indication that the MPEG LA intends to > create a patent pool for VP8 as well: ... they claimed the same for Theora btw and nothing happened.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
