2010/5/19 Silvia Pfeiffer <[email protected]>
> 2010/5/20 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:38 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 20 May 2010 00:34, Nils Dagsson Moskopp > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > James Salsman <[email protected]> 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 > devices > > supported baseline profile H.264 (which looks terrible compared to the > other > > 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 > has > > 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...
