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

[coder]

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).

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.

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/Software_patent#Early_example_of_a_software_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.

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.

[coder]

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.

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.

[bridgman]

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".

[coder]

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.