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 Qaridarium
    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
    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
    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
    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


    • #22
      Originally posted by Qaridarium
      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
      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


      • #23
        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


        • #24
          Originally posted by Qaridarium
          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