Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (3038)

• Changes to the WebM Open Source License

  4 juin 2010, par noreply@blogger.com (John Luther)

  You’ll see on the WebM license page and in our source code repositories that we’ve made a small change to our open source license. There were a couple of issues that popped up after we released WebM at Google I/O a couple weeks ago, specifically around how the patent clause was written.

  As it was originally written, if a patent action was brought against Google, the patent license terminated. This provision itself is not unusual in an OSS license, and similar provisions exist in the 2nd Apache License and in version 3 of the GPL. The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2 incompatible. Also, in doing this, we effectively created a potentially new open source copyright license, something we are loath to do.

  Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses, in this new iteration of the patent clause we’ve decoupled patents from copyright, thus preserving the pure BSD nature of the copyright license. This means we are no longer creating a new open source copyright license, and the patent grant can exist on its own. Additionally, we have updated the patent grant language to make it clearer that the grant includes the right to modify the code and give it to others. (We’ve updated the licensing FAQ to reflect these changes as well.)

  We’ve also added a definition for the "this implementation" language, to make that more clear.

  Thanks for your patience as we worked through this, and we hope you like, enjoy and (most importantly) use WebM and join with us in creating more freedom online. We had a lot of help on these changes, so thanks to our friends in open source and free software who traded many emails, often at odd hours, with us.

  Chris DiBona is the Open Source Programs Manager at Google.

  

• avutil/dovi_meta : add dolby vision extension blocks

  23 mars 2024, par Niklas Haas

  avutil/dovi_meta : add dolby vision extension blocks
  As well as accessors plus a function for allocating this struct with
  
  extension blocks,
  Definitions generously taken from quietvoid/dovi_tool, which is
  
  assembled as a collection of various patent fragments, as well as output
  
  by the official Dolby Vision bitstream verifier tool.
  

  • [DH] doc/APIchanges
  • [DH] libavutil/dovi_meta.c
  • [DH] libavutil/dovi_meta.h
  • [DH] libavutil/version.h

• Decoder return of av_find_best_stream vs. avcodec_find_decoder

  7 octobre 2016, par Jason C

  The docs for libav’s av_find_best_stream function (libav 11.7, Windows, i686, GPL) specify a parameter that can be used to receive a pointer to an appropriate AVCodec :

  decoder_ret - if non-NULL, returns the decoder for the selected stream

  There is also the avcodec_find_decoder function which can find an AVCodec given an ID.

  However, the official demuxing + decoding example uses av_find_best_stream to find a stream, but chooses to use avcodec_find_decoder to find the codec in lieu of av_find_best_stream’s codec return parameter :

  ret = av_find_best_stream(fmt_ctx, type, -1, -1, NULL, 0);
  
  ...
  
  stream_index = ret;
  
  st = fmt_ctx->streams[stream_index];
  
  ...
  
  /* find decoder for the stream */
  
  dec = avcodec_find_decoder(st->codecpar->codec_id);

  As opposed to something like :

  ret = av_find_best_stream(fmt_ctx, type, -1, -1, &dec, 0);

  My question is pretty straightforward : Is there a difference between using av_find_best_stream’s return parameter vs. using avcodec_find_decoder to find the AVCodec ?

  The reason I ask is because the example chose to use avcodec_find_decoder rather than the seemingly more convenient return parameter, and I can’t tell if the example did that for a specific reason or not. The documentation itself is a little spotty and disjoint, so it’s hard to tell if things like this are done for a specific important reason or not. I can’t tell if the example is implying that it "should" be done that way, or if the example author did it for some more arbitrary personal reason.