Question to the XviD team.

[mikemikez]

Hi,

With the MPEG4 licensing trouble in mind, I have this question...

What if you guys would just alter XviD to be MPEG4 uncompliant, launch your own decoder and specs and will offer all this at twice the attractiveness of MPEG4 for use on the web?

For free that is.

I'm sure there's many people on these forums that would help in making this thing known to the public and making sure every signle internet user will download your codec....

Or do you guys have big commercial plans allready?


Mike

[Infophreak]

That's pretty much impossible. Even though it would be relatively easy to make it incompatible with MPEG-4, it would still use technology covered by the patents that MPEG-LA holds. In other words: It wouldn't change anything.

Did I forget to mention that software patents are a Bad Thing (TM)?

[Koepi]

XviD is an educational project - completely uncommercial and meant to stay that way.

So no troubles with MPEG4LA anymore - it's free for non-commercial use.

Regards,
Koepi

P.S.: this sure belongs into XviD-forum, don't you think?

[mikemikez]

ok, koepie

But don't Windows Media, Real Media, Quicktime, and now even MPEG4 tell us that there is a desperate NEED for a codec totally free of the rules and even registration obligations forced upon us by these companies?

What bothers me a bit is that this very nice XviD project is however sucking up real great talent to produce something that is not freely distributable, probably not even the media files created with it. Don't you see this is exactly what the above mentioned companies want?
Don't you see how good it would be for the internet community if a solid codec like this one would be free to all, companies as well!?
(Only big companies are being favored by the licensing structure of MPEG4 for instance)
Can you imagine the amount of irritating banners, popups, spyware and other commercials that woould save the world?
It's very important that also companies can use it freely, that's where there's most to win!

Why not use this talent to do even more good to the world than just being uncommercial and educational? Why not make some minor changes in the way this project works and thereby serving the greater good and making a very strong statement that companies can't just CLAIM the internet.

About the legal thing. I think that should not be really hard to avoid. MPEG4 is a basic set of rules and a structure that is INTENDED to create a standard, and nothing more. The actual encoding/decoding algorythms are defined by the codec that complies to it(as far as I know). Basically, they didn't create a codec at all, it's just a really advanced container format.


Mike

[Jon Ingram]

mikemikez, you sound like you would be interested in Theora (http://www.theora.org). This is a project by the Ogg team to produce a completely free a/v system. The audio portion will be Vorbis (just about to get to version 1.0). The video portion will be based on On2's VP3 codec. On2 released the code a while back, but 2 weeks ago they both improved the licensing and gave a very wide patent grant to developers of the codec.

XviD is likely to remain better than Theora for quite some time -- many man-years of coding effort have gone into it.

[mikemikez]

Well, still sounds tricky to me. On2 still is the one that makes those rules and it is a commercial company.

Why not use XviD in some minorly or even heavily altered way?
Wouldn't that be a good educational project too?

Mike

[ChristianHJW]

Interesting question this, mikemikez .... would a non MPEG4 compliant XviD codec violate any major patents ?

As you say, the basic compression principle, means the DCT / iDCT , is certainly not subject to patents, because its pure maths. They maybe could patent some pieces, like the 8 x 8 pixel macroblocks, but whats hindering us in creating a lets say 11 x 11 pixle macroblock ?

Somethings about I/P/B frames, automatic keyframe insertion, motion compensation, etc. need further investigation if they were subject to patents or not ..... but even if they are i just doubt these are easily proven to be violated.

I once read a pretty interesting comment in a commercial magazine that some huge software companies had invested big sums in order to find out how and why software industry patents are done.

Main reason was, very surprisingly for me, to make sure that the investments in the developments projects of the companies can not be undermined by competing companies ..... in other words, patents are applied to and hold to make sure the software products being developed on the basis of these patents can be freely distributed, without having to pay license fees to other companies.

Only very low interest in software industry patents is to be able to charge such fees from other companies ... and this was confirmed by the comparably low number of court trials done by competing software companies, as a result of the strategy explained above.

So .... even if a modified, non-MPEG4 compliant XviD would violate any software patents, its more than questionable if anybody would try to prove it does and go to the courts about it.

[mikemikez]

Yup,

Another thing that supports all this is the fact that DivX 3.11 which is based on MS patents is most likely losselessly convertable to a MPEGLA patented MPEG4 compatible stream by only changing a tiny bit of the structure.
(I'm no expert, but I trust -h on this one)

XviD certainly has the knowledge and the community to make this thing happen!

What the hell are we waiting for?

Mike


Oh, chistian. About patents and licenses. They are ideal for transferring huge amounts of money between friends. If you ask me, the biggest all time pocketfiller is trading licences(air).
Did you know that in many countries licenses are much less heavily taxed than other goods?
Why you think many companies have(it was worse in the past) have many weirdly chosen software products floating around the company? Yup, that means some of the board members had to do some extra cashing or the head of purchasing is working heavily on his retirement plan..:)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mikemikez
What bothers me a bit is that this very nice XviD project is however sucking up real great talent to produce something that is not freely distributable, probably not even the media files created with it. Don't you see this is exactly what the above mentioned companies want? Don't you see how good it would be for the internet community if a solid codec like this one would be free to all, companies as well!?
(Only big companies are being favored by the licensing structure of MPEG4 for instance)Can you imagine the amount of irritating banners, popups, spyware and other commercials that woould save the world?
It's very important that also companies can use it freely, that's where there's most to win!

Their tallent, their time, their choice where to use them. Don't go condescending them. Groups like Xiphophorus have what you speak of covered. Once they get rolling I think you will find that some of them will lend time to it if they are not already. Nothing says the future of Xvid will be limited either. There are still unresolved issues upon which we are awaiting comment.

There is nothing to be gained from badgering the developers. What happened with Nando and Nandub should be a good example. Give them time. After all it is their time. :)

[mikemikez]

Neo Neko,

I don't know how many times I have to say this to you.

STOP IRRITATING AND INSULTING ME!!!

"Don't go condescending them."

"There is nothing to be gained from badgering the developers."


Yet another topic you messup with your false claims, lies and insults.

STOP STALKING ME!!!


This is getting like a freakin' horrormovie, everywhere I go this insane 500line minimum reply-length forum-psychopath jumps in front of me and the worst part, he's always a moderator, no matter where I am.


Mike

[Koepi]

Mike,

calm down. Remember rule nr.4 of this forum.

You seem to lack some knowledge other people around here have, and ask questions which weren't necessary if you'd research a little in first place.

So there is no insult in any word spent above.

The mistake is on your side.

Strike.

regards,
Koepi

P.S.: and I'd say you owe Neo an apology.

[Neo Neko]

Yes please calm down Mike. There was no venom ment there. Most of what they are dooing is beyond what you or I could do. I think we owe them just a little respect for that. Honestly I would be delighted if Keopi, -h, or nic and some of the other Xvid devs would take a crack at Theora or something like it. There is not much they can do on Theora though ATM. But it should be on their own terms, and because they want to. These guys have real lives as well. They don't sit at home all day coding for Xvid. They do it in their off time. Possibly in leau of a date. :) Of course after seeing -h's picture I have a hard time believing he can't get a date. Not bad for a kilted yacksman. :)


BTW Mike I moderate at 3 different places. You are not registered at or have not visited two of them. Calm down. I am not out to get you. We disagree on some things........ alot. But I thought that untill recently we had made it out of that rut for a while. :( Newhoo. If the text gets overwhelming just take a deep breath and go at it slowly. I myself enjoy reading and typing. ;)

[Marc FD]

Excuse me i'm not very well informed on patents, law ond so on but why should XviD NOT be a MPEG-4 compatible codec ??
from what i know there are only advantages :
1) MPEG-4 is going to be a standard, no ? So if XviD is MPEG-4 compatible, every MPEG-4 compatible player could use XviD.It's the better way to diffuse it.
2) MPEG-4 as some restricitives rules, and strictly follow them makes some improvements impossible. BUT the MPEG-4 specs are evolving. If the MPEG-4 specs integrate the H.26l project, the coders should be able to implement tons of features and on their own-time, this would be already enough !
3) There are plenty of MPEG-4 compatible codecs : The interest is that we can compare them easily(because compare RV with an another codec is really hard !)
4) From what i understood, XviD is an educationnal project, so if you use XviD for educationnal purpose (like me :), i'm still a student)
There are no law/patents issues, right ??

I just not understand what mike say about big companies...
They can't copy the XviD source and make their own codec with it, can they ??

@Neo Neko
I'm like you : Some people don't like me because i write big posts !
It's because i enjoy read and write big posts so always i hope s.o. will make big post too ! (and i'm satisfacted with your posts :) )

PS : If i said something wrong, correct me, thx

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Marc FD
I just not understand what mike say about big companies...
They can't copy the XviD source and make their own codec with it, can they ??


If they release the sourcecode in respect to the GPL, they can do whatever they want with it. (As long as they pay the respective license fees to the MPEGLA)

[Marc FD]

I thinked a GPL software couldn't be sell ??
I'm wrong ?
But if they release the sourcecode modification, there is no pb at all, it would just HELP the XviD team :cool:

[TheXung]

After thinking about this, I'm beginning to wonder just what aspects of mpeg4 are still patented. Simplistically, Mpeg4 is really just a more advanced form of mpeg2 and 1. I'm not sure how old 1 and 2 are but they must be nearing their 20 year patent expiration. Once those expire, any codec can use DCT/IDCT and motion estimation.

But realistically, just what are the chances of developing new video compression techniques that will greatly out do mpeg4? and in a timely manner.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Marc FD
I thinked a GPL software couldn't be sell ??


http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things."

Emphasis mine.

[primitive]

Eh, who cares.

First of all, the "license problem" is a myth propigated by people who did not carefully read and comprehend the final MPEG-4 license terms. I have posted at length on this issue in another thread. Allow me to link to that other thread, if I may:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29285

I am not a lawyer, but even a layman could skim that license and understand the basics of what it means: the MPEG4 LA only demands royalties for commercial applications of MPEG-4 technology. This leads me to believe that the MPEG4 LA really doesn't care about free and Free implementations of the MPEG4 spec -- it could actually encourage them, because whether or not a company chooses to use a Free or a commercial MPEG-4 implementation they still owe the MPEG4 LA royalites. In their eyes, it may also be better to encourage free implementations to increase the rate of market penetration of MPEG-4 technology, because if you're already used to using MPEG-4 technology you'd be more likely to buy a standalone MPEG-4 player, upon which the MPEG4 LA makes out like a bandit on royalties.

Long Live XviD, Long Live FFMpeg. They are both great tools that have been freed from the shackles of potential royalties by these final licensing terms.

-p

P.S. I personally have been installing FFMpeg on every machine I see lately; it nicely solves all the problems myself and my friends have been having with DirectShow video playback.

[Marc FD]

@primitive

Thanks, i would say dumb things on GPL again :D
But i agree 100% with you : free software is a great thing, and the best is that the better software i know are all free software :
VirtualDub / XviD / linux / ffdshow and so much more

PS : Reading your post i think i should try FFMpeg : it looks interesting. What is it ? Can it run under M$ winXP ?? what's the gain on DShow (even if there is no gain, if i can avoid to use DShow on my machine, i would be really happy. I hate this M$ buggy+shitty API (with a 200 megs SDK :rolleyes: )
Can you say me more on FFMpeg ?? thx.

[avih]

Originally posted by primitive
-p

P.S. I personally have been installing FFMpeg on every machine I see lately; it nicely solves all the problems myself and my friends have been having with DirectShow video playback. [/B]

do u mean ffdshow?

afaik, ffmpeg is mainly a library for encoding/decoding, and it's windows implementation is not complete.

ffdshow, on the other hand, uses, among other things, libavcodec, which is a part of the ffmpeg project to decode mpeg4 based clips, with a nice dshow interface...

[Marc FD]

It's what i thought.
So we can't use FFmpeg instead of DShow :( ...
...it was a false hope,sniff :(

[Neo Neko]

ffdshow uses a dshow interface which is not bad. It can resolve problems for all those who wish to run Divx4+ on machines using VIA mobo chipsets easily. Not to mention many other problems. That and it does all this on it's own. No need for 8 different decoders. :) The only problem here would be if you had bad dshow support. :(

[Marc FD]

Originally posted by Marc FD
the better software i know (and use) are all free software :
VirtualDub / XviD / linux / ffdshow and so much more


It's why FFmpeg sounded familiar to me :)
but i can live with any M$ progs/api or whatever (if there hacked, of course :devil: )
I already use winXP,Iexplore,Outlook,MSC++,....
Just avoiding the buggy&crappy DShow is a very good idea.
I hope an alternative would be soon usable (like ffmpeg :) )