[Ffmpeg-devel] why not have h264
Wed Nov 9 15:34:12 CET 2005
> Is it necessary that the whole encoder needs to be rewritten
> using LGPL as a license or can (parts or whole of) the x264
> encoder be "relicensed"?
This issue was raised on the FFMPEG mailing list last spring, and if I recall
the consensus was that x264 developers who participate to this mailing list
agreed to x264 source code being used and relicensed under LGPL as part of a
"native" H.264 codec. I couldn't say about other x264 developers.
> > The H264 codec is quite complicated, and I think it will still
> > take some time before someone writes a GPL version of the codec.
> > It's still a lot of work i suspect.
> I think quite some people are willing to spend time on improving
> and testing the H264 encoder if the license is changed to LGPL.
No company would put resources into anything GPL. This is not to start a flame
or any other form of debate, so please consider this statement as my personal
If the x264 team cannot agree to their source code or parts thereof being used
under the LGPL, this is their right.
I would certainly welcome a clear statement from the x264 team (as a whole) on
this matter, because most people would not take a chance without it.
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
More information about the ffmpeg-devel