[XviD-devel] License/legal discussions
jan at rychter.com
Tue Dec 16 16:53:44 CET 2003
>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Hauxwell <james at dattrax.co.uk>:
Jim> Jan, If you are only doing playback, then get a licence from DivX
Jim> Networks for DivX5.x. Probably most of the specific code your
Jim> company has written from scratch, and would not have been subject
Jim> to GPL if it was in another decoder. This could be slotted into
Jim> the DivX decoder SDK with little effort (iDCTs / motion comp). I
Jim> must be clear that this doesn't mean in any way ripping off any
Jim> part of the Xvid code. You could have a very performant decoder
Jim> in a quick time and resolve the licensing issue. I wouldn't say
Jim> DivX encoder is better than Xvid, as its not, however the decoder
Jim> should be OK.
Jim> Just a Thought
Thanks -- but how does that help the XviD project?
As I mentioned at the beginning, it's not like we *have* to use XviD,
and it's not like we're trying desperately to make money off it. We'd
like to work with the project and open-source our work, so that people
can hack on the hardware architecture we'll be announcing soon. Yes,
we'd also like to include MPEG-4 SP/ASP in our Video-on-Demand systems,
but there are other ways to do that.
As to other discussions in this thread: I don't want to respond to every
posting. I have seen some statements with regard to the GPL, MPEG-LA and
licensing that are incorrect -- but the point is not to discuss those to
death. I think we can all agree that the current way of licensing XviD
causes at least a lot of confusion and disagreement on what exactly can
be done with the code.
Perhaps it is possible to change the license or dual-license XviD, then?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://edu.bnhof.de/pipermail/xvid-devel/attachments/20031216/5df828dc/attachment.bin
More information about the XviD-devel