Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Announcing commercial licensing for x264

mailman.videolan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 11 posts

Re: Announcing commercial licensing for x264

#5

Post by kierank »

oiuhyjtgfhjkl wrote: post #4

Does this mean they are finally going to support Visual Studio? Or are they sticking to their - we hate MS, so if you want to use it on windows you have to cross-compile under Linux and then do penance for your immortal soul?

There was never any anti-MS sentiment - Visual Studio is not C99 compliant and nobody was going to accept dirty workarounds. If you want to compile x264 on windows you can compile it either with MingW or cygwin with GCC. ICC is also supported on Linux.

Re: Announcing commercial licensing for x264

#6

Post by spatulon »

oiuhyjtgfhjkl wrote: post #4

Does this mean they are finally going to support Visual Studio? Or are they sticking to their - we hate MS, so if you want to use it on windows you have to cross-compile under Linux and then do penance for your immortal soul?

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

Last time I tried, I had no problem building x264 on Windows with Cygwin. The problem with Visual Studio is that it doesn't support C99, which x264 uses heavily. That suggests to me less of a hatred towards Windows, and more of a general apathy towards Visual Studio.

Re: Announcing commercial licensing for x264

#7

Post by callahad »

afhof wrote: post #3

I'm no expert, but those terms don't sound very enticing.

Though the terms do fall short of what most people expect of "dual-licensed" software, I don't think they're that bad. Essentially, instead of offering GPL-only, you now have the option of a license that is similar in terms to the LGPL. Your application code can remain proprietary while using x264.

Re: Announcing commercial licensing for x264

#8

Post by jws »

callahad wrote: post #7
afhof wrote: post #3

I'm no expert, but those terms don't sound very enticing.

Though the terms do fall short of what most people expect of "dual-licensed" software, I don't think they're that bad. Essentially, instead of offering GPL-only, you now have the option of a license that is similar in terms to the LGPL. Your application code can remain proprietary while using x264.

I think the price seems high. It is about 5 times the MPEG-LA fees to license the patents they have implemented.

Still, it is only a dollar, so for expensive software it isn't a big deal.

Re: Announcing commercial licensing for x264

#9

Post by iuytfrdsfgh »

albertzeyer wrote: post #2

Just curious: How is a unit defined? For each copy of it? How should that be measured? Or for each download? That can be very inaccurate if you have your product on a lot of independent mirror servers.

If you are distributing a proprietary bit of software you presumably have a method for counting how many copies you sold in order to know how many $ you should have.

If you are giving it away then why not just use the GPL version

Re: Announcing commercial licensing for x264

#10

Post by wmf »

jws wrote: post #8
callahad wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though the terms do fall short of what most people expect of "dual-licensed" software, I don't think they're that bad. Essentially, instead of offering GPL-only, you now have the option of a license that is similar in terms to the LGPL. Your application code can remain proprietary while using x264.

I think the price seems high. It is about 5 times the MPEG-LA fees to license the patents they have implemented. Still, it is only a dollar, so for expensive software it isn't a big deal.

I would guess that MainConcept or Ateme charge much more.
Post reply on HN