[BlackDove]

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/08/26/mpeg.group.makes.free.h264.use.permanent/

I don't know the actual implications behind choosing to use .ogg, other than what I assumed was because it was a free and open platform, but because theora is the devil, I was wondering whether or not we could get some h264 in this *****?

Is that feasible at all?

[FUBAR-BDHR]

No idea if that license is compatible.  Also you would need to find a coder to implement it. 

[The E]

Yeah, the problem is that free decoders for h264 like libAVC are under GPL, meaning we can't use them.

Now Google's VP8, that's another story.

[chief1983]

Yeah VP8 is likely the way to go at some point, and there's already been a rewrite of the reference codec that's way faster, probably fast enough to be a good alternative even on slower hardware.

[Mongoose]

So basically, anything coded under GPL explicitly can't be used for a strictly non-commercial codebase like FS_Open?

[karajorma]

Yep. GPL is actually very restrictive due the fact that it insists that any code using GPL'd code must not have any restrictions GPL doesn't.

LGPL doesn't suffer from the same issues IIRC but that is used much less often.

[chief1983]

Sadly, LGPL is not used in places its better suited for than GPL.  Of course, even with GPL, you can sometimes get away with linking against it as long as it is an external library and not linked in.

[BlackDove]

Thanks for the answers.

I was wondering though, why is it that stuff under the GPL can't be used for FSO?

[chief1983]

The GPL is viral.  Everything that directly includes any GPL code must itself be GPL or a GPL-compatible license.  The license Volition released the code under is not compatible with the GPL as it contains further restrictions, such as non-profit use only.  LGPL is less restrictive but under-used.

[BlackDove]

I see. Thanks.

[Iss Mneur]

The GPL is viral.  Everything that directly includes any GPL code must itself be GPL or a GPL-compatible license.  The license Volition released the code under is not compatible with the GPL as it contains further restrictions, such as non-profit use only.  LGPL is less restrictive but under-used.

To be clearer the only restrictions that LGPL does not have the the GPL does is that the object code (ie. a .dll or .so) of an LGPL library does not require what it is linking against it to be compatible as long as the LGPL library is dynamically linked.  If LGPL code is statically linked it works the same as a GPL library and has the same restrictions.

[Spicious]

I don't know the actual implications behind choosing to use .ogg, other than what I assumed was because it was a free and open platform, but because theora is the devil, I was wondering whether or not we could get some h264 in this *****?

I think you'll find that MPEG-LA are actually the devil in this case.

[chief1983]

I think he's talking about theora being the devil for another reason.  Like, it's not a great codec in the first place.

[kkmic]

Can't we ask the developers for a specific license? I mean, it's for a non-profit work, and if the license is specifically designed for FSO, why wouldn't they want to? Besides, FSO is a known name...

[The E]

Not THAT known, I fear.

[kkmic]

Not THAT known, I fear.

Well, there is a Wikipedia page dedicated to the project, a forum and an active community.

Bottom line: does it hurt to ask nicely?

[BlackDove]

I thought it wouldn't as well, but I wasn't one to do it as I'm not familiar with the exact specifics of what to ask for.

[Spicious]

This free thing seems to apply strictly to free internet video.