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

[Kieran Kunhya]

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


I would like to point out in the four months since this email X264 LLC has done nothing to address the issue of highly misleading marketing. All requests for clarification I have made since April have been ignored.

It is clear that for many years X264 LLC is not interested in complying with the original agreement as part of the dual licensing and instead has resorted to blame CoreCodec, who have even less of a grip on reality than X264 LLC, instead of actually dealing with the issues that they are contractually obliged to.

This has to change. Pretending these problems are not there doesn't make them go away.

Kieran