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

[Jason Garrett-Glaser]

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
<derek.buitenhuis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

If you have misleading marketing or similar issues to report, you can
email Meghan or Dan (at info at x264licensing.com) and they'll harass the
relevant people. I don't think they're on the mailing list, but I
might be wrong.

> 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).

Technically, they're supposed to provide them in timely fashion to us,
without asking. I don't think we've received any from Elemental, but
I've sent an email to CoreCodec to double-check.

There are no patches I've received that I have not posted publicly.

Jason