[x264-devel] Licensee(s) blatantly violating x264, LLC's terms (and other misc things)

[Derek Buitenhuis]

So, I've been watching some stuff like this happen for some time now,
and I figured it was proper to bring it to light.

Most recent example:

http://www.elementaltechnologies.com/newsroom/press-releases/elemental-ushers-future-software-defined-video

->

"Allowing less compute-intensive applications, such as single-stream
encoding, to take advantage of Elemental’s platform without the assist
of graphic processors;"

I believe this violates the part of the contract they signed that disallows
claiming x264 as their own.

Bonus example:

http://www.telestream.net/pdfs/datasheets/dat-Vantage-Transcode-Multiscreen.pdf

"Only Transcode Multiscreen allows full GPU acceleration of x264
encoding for high quality with exceptional transcoding speed."

Not sure if it violates any part of the contract, but it's certainly
a straight-up lie.

Something should be done.

Moreover, and I know I personally have no right to ask this, since I have
no "points" in x264, LLC, but it would be nice if thre was actually a procss
for comapnies to submit patches they have to x264. Currently the process is:

1) Poke Jason and hope he responds.
2) Wait and wait some more, hoping it has been asked.
3) See if the company sends them or not (waiting more).

There are definitely x264 licensees who have patches to x264, since, looking
at the list of licensees, and their products, there is no way they could
otherwise accomplish some of the things they are doing.

I say this as an ardent supporter of FOSS, professionally, and in my personal time.

Cheers,
- Derek