Small rant and advise to people/groups that publish XviD binaries

[mf]

I was asked to post this in GomGom's name, who has posted this on XviD.org (http://www.xvid.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=44&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0).

Text follows:

____________________________________________________

Small rant and advise to people/groups that publish XviD binaries.
Posted by: GomGom

Distributing XviD is allowed and it is encouraged by the fact it is published under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2. But, here at xvid.org, we don't distribute binaries for legal reasons. That's why users use to download binary versions of XviD from people that take our sources and compile them. There is nothing wrong there.

But, i've recently seen on doom9.org forums, links to so called "official" binaries of 0.9.2 including a set of features that are not part of the 0.9.x source tree. I think it is absurd that people completly disconnected from the core coders do such a mistake that only results in mistaking the final user. I don't even want to talk about their dev-api-4 build.

In the future i would like that binary makers/distributors take more care about their releases. You can't just grab sources and lable them "official". Respect our hard work, and respect users.

If you publish stable releases, use our stable source releases (0.9.x). And even if I don't encourage using unstable source trees (head or dev-api-4), I can't forbid you to do so, but please, advertise the build as being unstable and make it clear encoded material may break in the future.

For me proposing to end users:



0.9.x releases is fine, of course it's a bit outdated, but it still performs well.
head "releases" is also fine. Win32 users use it when they download Koepi's/Nic's builds.
dev-api-4 is not encouraged... this branch is higly unstable, bugs are discovered and fixed on a day basis. And i would really like no one propose a public dev-api-4 build until core coders judge it's time do so.


-- Edouard Gomez

DISCLAIMER: this news engage only my personal opinion. Perhaps other XviD coders think differently and i don't have the right to talk in their name.
____________________________________________________

[superdump]

I believe that dev-api-4 should be used only for testing until devs think it is good enough for an unstable release or for v1.0 release.

I think archiving of dev-api-4 encoded material i stupid unless you do it for reference purposes only.

[PowerMacG4]

dev-api-4 has VHQ for B-frames, correct?

[BoNz1]

Originally posted by PowerMacG4
dev-api-4 has VHQ for B-frames, correct?

No, not yet, I think this is going to be added after 1.0 and I think sysKin said it wasn't that useful anyway http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54937 As for XviD builds, personally, I would like it if there were public releases. I'm quite sure that dev-api-4 builds will produce higher quality ATM. I also understand that it is very unstable and that I might be able to not play them in the future but as far as I'm concerned thats a gamble we have always taken and it is a gamble I am willing to take. Anyway, I respect the XviD developers and GomGom (he has helped me several times) and I won't release any of my builds here.
EDIT: Of course, there is ways that you can playback the file even if it is messed up and future decoders won't be able to play it, just include the vfw decoder and xvid.ax on the cd, ;) not very convenient sure, but better than nothing. Of course, the file might not play on a hardware player.

[DarkDudae]

In that new, there is a reply, I think it should be here too:

"Hello, this new has affected me, because I was who compiled that version (0.9.2).
First of all, I have to say I am sorry for this incident, because it is an important error, since the core of the codec (libxvidcore.lib) really belongs to the source core of 0.9.2 version downloadable from this web, and that my error was in that I used a proyect of VFW(Video for Windows) too much new (latest one of CVS) for the Windows compilation, because this was the *only* proyect available on the web to be downloaded.
I am sorry for all the problem it has been caused, and I must add that I have recompiled the version using a previous proyect of VFW , and now, the codec only has the options that really must have.
Also say that devapi4 compilations in the web are ONLY for testers and that is write on principal post about these versions.

Greetings and sorry for my poor english, Mashabak. "

PowerMac: Syskin had b-frames in one of his dev-api-3, but the gains were minimal, almost none, and speed was horrible. So I think Dev-api-4 won´t have VHQ on b-frames.Maybe I am wrong, Syskin will correct me.

[Rash]

Well, can I ask one thing? You guys really don't have to reply in case it is too forbidden.
But what are the legal problems of distributing binaries in the official site? Not that I don't like the other builds! Hey... I do. But usually open source programs (like the ones in Sourceforge, for example) are also distributed with their official binaries.

Thanks ;)

[Th3-S4int]

If Iam right, then you must pay money for a lisence if you distribut a full working binarie, because of the mpeg4!

[MoritzT]

The problem with XviD are MPEG4 licensing issues. But as long as XviD is (officially) provided in source code only and for educational purposes, there shouldn't be any problems - that's how I understand it, anyway.

EDIT:
not fast enough... ;)

[Rash]

Thanks people. ;)

[ChronoReverse]

I agree, dev-api-4 is QUITE buggy.