H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC)

Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by cyphar on Monday July 06, 2020 @10:33AM (#23748297)

While they are patent-encumbered in the strictest sense of the word, they are not as aggressively licensed as H.266 -- which is what GP was lamenting. Licensing H.266 under the GPL(v3) wouldn't erase the existence of the patents and it would still be "patent-encumbered" in the same sense that VP8/9 and AV1 are.

And retaliation clauses are present in basically every free software license that has clauses dealing with patents (including Apache-2.0).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by p_l on Monday July 06, 2020 @10:39AM (#23748365)

A big part is in how expensive can you make said retaliation.

I'm more and more fond of calling it all a big game of chicken, a MAD without nukes,

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by craftinator on Monday July 06, 2020 @12:24PM (#23749495)

Hah I love this analogy! Guess that's societal progress for you; we use currency to replace munitions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by RBURBURXEIVG3KO on Monday July 06, 2020 @11:15AM (#23748789)

Wouldn't Apache 2 be a better license for this since it is explicit on patents?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:H.266/Versatile Video Coding (VVC) by cyphar on Monday July 06, 2020 @11:19AM (#23748842)

GPL is the example GP used, which is why I referenced it. It's not really important what free software license it would be (though GPLv3 does have an entire section (s11) which is all about patents -- that's why it's compatible with Apache-2.0).

[ Parent | on HN ]