Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vega-Based Renoir APU Has The Same VCN Video Encode/Decode Block As Navi

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    IMO, it's obvious Qaridarium meant H.265, which is patented.
    yes and i really mean x265 because GPL x265 with Patents means in fact closed source

    because you can not use the code "free"

    open-source but patented is really idiotic ... in fact the software patents where in fact only made by corrupt politicians
    to make sure it sabotage the FOSS/FLOSS movement.

    so in my point of view there is no real difference between H.265 and X.265

    only VP9 and AV1 makes a real difference ans is really "free" to use and really means FOSS/FLOSS without sabotage from corrupt patent system.
    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
      Really? People still use the ancient MPEG-2?
      Yeah, this is somewhat dubious. I mean, if you're working with a legacy system, like ATSC, then it's the only option. Otherwise, there's no reason to prefer it over newer codecs.

      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
      I agree. I feel it's mostly designed with hardware accelerators in mind, and some are inconsistent. I tried decoding HEVC video with my AMD card, and saw a few differences when compared to CPU decoding.
      That's weird, because the decoders are exactly standardized. Since H.264, the standards leave no ambiguity about exactly how a given bitstream should be decoded. The only thing I don't know is if H.265 specifies error recovery so rigorously.

      Anyway, what happens if decoders are allowed to produce a different output is that the differences between the expected output & actual output will accumulate between decoder refreshes, leading to some sort of creeping picture corruption.

      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
      Apparently professionals prefer proprietary formats... I don't see the reason though...
      JPEG2000 is an ISO standard, just like MPEG-4 - not proprietary. And they are open standards, meaning anyone can access the specification. However, open standard doesn't imply free-to-use.

      Anyway, here's what wikipedia says about JPEG 2000:
      JPEG 2000 is covered by patents, but the contributing companies and organizations agreed that licenses for its first part—the core coding system—can be obtained free of charge from all contributors.

      ...

      However, the JPEG committee has acknowledged that undeclared submarine patents may still present a hazard
      More, at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Legal_status

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        yes and i really mean x265 because GPL x265 with Patents means in fact closed source
        WTF?

        H.265 is patented. x265 implements H.265 and is GPL. So, patents do not mean closed source!

        However, in order to use a GPL implementation of a patented technique, you might be legally required to pay a license fee to the patent holder. But the implementation can still be open source.

        That said, perhaps the patent holder can also order the open source developer(s) to cease distributing their (unlicensed) implementation. I'm not sure about that, but I've always assumed they could shut it down (or at least try).

        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        open-source but patented is really idiotic ...
        Open Source is just a collaboration model. It's an entirely legitimate way for people or companies to cooperatively develop software that might still be non-free to use. Sure, it might not attract as much interest and contributions as a project that's not encumbered by patents, but that doesn't make it idiotic.

        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        in fact the software patents where in fact only made by corrupt politicians
        to make sure it sabotage the FOSS/FLOSS movement.
        Just because you don't like software patents doesn't make it okay to spin lies about them. Software patents long predate the open source movement.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softwa...oftware_patent

        Patents on software constructs were likely embraced for the same reasons as patents in other domains, which is not to say that they're not abused.

        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        in my point of view there is no real difference between H.265 and X.265
        One is a standard and one is an implementation.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by coder View Post
          WTF?
          H.265 is patented. x265 implements H.265 and is GPL. So, patents do not mean closed source!
          However, in order to use a GPL implementation of a patented technique, you might be legally required to pay a license fee to the patent holder. But the implementation can still be open source.
          That said, perhaps the patent holder can also order the open source developer(s) to cease distributing their (unlicensed) implementation. I'm not sure about that, but I've always assumed they could shut it down (or at least try).
          for me this is closed source

          because FLOSS is for me: Free to use and free to share without any payment to patent holders.

          if it is not free to use and you can not share it free then it is anything but not open-source.

          it is like you get the source code but you have to sign a NDA...
          Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
            for me this is closed source
            You can call it whatever you want, but for communication to work, words need to have some mutually agreed meaning. Your definition of closed-source is non-standard, because the source, in this case, is literally open.

            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
            because FLOSS is for me: Free to use and free to share without any payment to patent holders.
            So, a more accurate phrase would be "non-free open source", because it's open but not free to use.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by coder View Post
              So, a more accurate phrase would be "non-free open source", because it's open but not free to use.
              Or "free and open source implementing a non-free standard".

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by coder View Post
                You can call it whatever you want, but for communication to work, words need to have some mutually agreed meaning. Your definition of closed-source is non-standard, because the source, in this case, is literally open.
                So, a more accurate phrase would be "non-free open source", because it's open but not free to use.
                for me FLOSS is freedom and because of this you are "free" and the words: non-free really do mean YOU ARE NOT FREE AND YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM...
                Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post

                  Or "free and open source implementing a non-free standard".
                  why we can not just agree that "non-free" is bad for humanity.

                  and "non-free" is the complete opposite than FLOSS
                  Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    why we can not just agree that "non-free" is bad for humanity.
                    I'm not trying to take a position on the issue, though I respect yours.

                    One can argue that governments should fund innovation at universities, and then we can have unencumbered implementations, or that the private sector should fund innovation at companies. There are cases to be made for both options.

                    I'm just trying to draw the distinction that "open source" is merely a means of collaboration, where as FLOSS includes the ethos you describe.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X