divX 6.0 announced on CeBIT [Archive]

View Full Version : divX 6.0 announced on CeBIT

killingspree

15th March 2003, 12:58

it seems that divX networks is already working on a new, supposedly twice as efficient version of the codec...

see here (http://www.chip.de/news/c_news_10195975.html) for details... (chip.de, german)

i haven't found a confirmation for this though, no word of something like divx 6.0 on their own website too...

regards
steVe

MfA

15th March 2003, 21:32

A proprietary DivX standard? If I were a hardware manufacturer I wouldnt touch that with a 10 foot pole.

Tommy Carrot

16th March 2003, 01:00

I guess it will be an h.264 implementation. (which would be a very good move from DXN)

EDIT: Sorry, did't read it, i assumed the most logical alternative. I don't think thay are able to do a better codec, so this is utter stupidity. :(

Teegedeck

16th March 2003, 01:01

Nope, not according to the guy they interviewed. And a funny bloke to interview that one must have been: H.264 no big improvement from MPEG4 (advanced simple profile)? What a load of shit from this DXN-CEO. A closed-source, compatible-with-nothing-else proprietary DivX6? Those guys dig their own graves. :rolleyes:

ChristianHJW

16th March 2003, 04:40

Lets make sure the h.264 opensource project on http://sf.net/projects/hdot264 will kick their asses ;) ....

Neo Neko

17th March 2003, 10:49

I am all for that christian. Is it true what I hear that the base h.264 profile will be license and royalty free?

iwod

17th March 2003, 10:51

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I am all for that christian. Is it true what I hear that the base h.264 profile will be license and royalty free?

Royalty free??

you mean h.263 need Royalty and h.264 does??

MfA

17th March 2003, 10:59

That would be funny wouldnt it (assuming you meant to say "and h.264 doesnt").

BTW base profile would only be royaltee free, these kind of patents are nearly always licensed at no royaltee for use in a specific setting ... not put in the public domain or licensed for free for all.

This is important since that is not enough for the GPL.

charact3r

18th March 2003, 08:45

BTW base profile would only be royaltee free, these kind of patents are nearly always licensed at no royaltee for use in a specific setting ... not put in the public domain or licensed for free for all.

This is important since that is not enough for the GPL.This is precisely why our opensource implementation hdot264 is triple licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL.

midiguy

18th March 2003, 16:00

can't you probably release it kinda like XviD and say "for testing and education purposes bla bla bla"? and hten avoid licensing fees?

BlackSun

21st March 2003, 12:40

Originally posted by midiguy
can't you probably release it kinda like XviD and say "for testing and education purposes bla bla bla"? and hten avoid licensing fees?

Well not in binary form, but for the source code and the implementation of the MPEG-4 specs, yes. That's why the XviD website doesn't host any binaries.

just my 2 cents

N_F

21st March 2003, 13:29

Made a quick search on google on divx 6.0 and all I could find was german sites. Anyone found an english source (or a translation)?

MfA

21st March 2003, 13:57

Originally posted by charact3r
This is precisely why our opensource implementation hdot264 is triple licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL.

It is, and it isnt ... only seperate parts of it are truethfully (L)GPL in any meaningfull way. The binaries are all MPL and cant legally incorporate any existing GPL'd code. At least they are MPL when distributed by people who dont own the copyright, copyright owners can pretend it is licensed under anything they want (but still cant include existing GPL'd code). That is part of the problem, there are examples of companies pretending code they were distributing was being distributed under the GPL while they still owned the patents and were not giving a license for all uses in GPL'd projects. They can do this because they dont need a license, it only becomes a problem for us.

IMO patent encumbered code should never knowingly be GPL licensed (at least not without a no strings attached patent license for use in GPL'd code or country exclusion for those countries who allow software patents) since depending on intent it is either deceitfull or misleading. It pretends to grant rights which it doesnt. I wish the FSF would change their license to the GPL to reflect these issues.