I know Zoom does their codec in wasm [1] and so on, but I don't know much about how other different webrtc impls work.
Is there any reason jitsi or any other project would be faster / have better perf than peerjs.com?
Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
61–70 of 96 posts
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#62Friendly reminder that meet.jit.si is not end-to-end encrypted. So, unless hosting your own instance, using the website or the videoconference integration in Riot means your conversation is routed through an Atlassian-owned server. See https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/409#issuecomment-... .
It's an chrome extension that reads your google and outlook calendar, captures your screen and communicates with "cooperating" websites
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#63We were using this for a while to do meetings for sr.ht, but we recently switched to - believe it or not - Mumble. It's old and unsexy but damn it's reliable.
This is coming more out of a theoretical interest, but what are the advantages of Mumble over TeamSpeak 3?
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright assignment lets the entity take full management of the copyright including license enforcement etc. The idea of assignment to FSF is not merely to guarantee to the world that the original copyright holder won't offer competing licenses or something.
Right, but my original question remains. How would the FSF allow the original copyright holder to claw back the copyright after assignment? That seems like it would be potentially incredibly disruptive (e.g. if a contributor decides several years after a lot of work has been built on top of the contributed code to claw back the rights), especially because as far as I'm aware there isn't a separate license you give th…
Probably a separate license is given to the FSF as a condition for assigning the copyright back. Then having a lot of work built on top of the original contribution would actually help the FSF, because then they'd have standing to enforce copyright on the derived work.
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#65Friendly reminder that meet.jit.si is not end-to-end encrypted. So, unless hosting your own instance, using the website or the videoconference integration in Riot means your conversation is routed through an Atlassian-owned server. See https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/409#issuecomment-... .
> through an Atlassian-owned server.
So completely under Five-Eyes mass surveillance (and questionable Australian jurisdiction regarding that) :(
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#66We were using this for a while to do meetings for sr.ht, but we recently switched to - believe it or not - Mumble. It's old and unsexy but damn it's reliable.
This is coming more out of a theoretical interest, but what are the advantages of Mumble over TeamSpeak 3?
Mumble is open source and Teamspeak is not, which immediately eliminates Teamspeak from the candidates.
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#67We were using this for a while to do meetings for sr.ht, but we recently switched to - believe it or not - Mumble. It's old and unsexy but damn it's reliable.
I’ve used Mumble for podcast recording for years. Built in recording capability, dirt cheap server hosting if you need it, and yeah, rock solid.
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#68Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#69Friendly reminder that meet.jit.si is not end-to-end encrypted. So, unless hosting your own instance, using the website or the videoconference integration in Riot means your conversation is routed through an Atlassian-owned server. See https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/409#issuecomment-... .
This github issue is from 2016– Atlassian sold Jitsi to 8x8 in 2018.
Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/29/atlassian-sells-jitsi-an-o...
Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing
#70To avoid browser variations with jitsi meet there's an electron version: