Re: codecs and totem
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Daniel Dickinson <cshore@wightman.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:00:49 -0400
> "Denver Gingerich" <denver@ossguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the MPEG-2 patent holders would disagree [1]. From what I can
>> tell, MPEG-2 is still covered by numerous patents, at least for a few
>> more years. Most DVDs use MPEG-2 although the standard allows for
>> MPEG-1, but with a maximum resolution of 352x288 [2] so most DVDs
>> don't use it. MPEG-1 would be much safer than MPEG-2 patent-wise [3].
>>
>> Which package in Debian main includes MPEG-2 support? It sounds like
>> a bug should be reported on this if the Debian people wish to remain
>> entirely free of patent-encumberance. However, if Debian wishes to
>> take a more pragmatic approach, such as allowing in patent-infringing
>> software where the patents are not being actively litigated, then
>> perhaps inclusion of MPEG-2 support in main is ok.
>
> totem-xine
> vlc
> (I think mplayer)
>
> can play DVD's as they are in main
Good to know.
> ffmpeg can decode (but not encode because of patents) MPEG-2 in main.
Where was this decision made? Is there a mailing list post or other
link you can point me to?
It seems strange that encoding support is not included when decoding
is included since the MPEG LA charges the same for each [5]. Of
course, there could be other patent holders that charge more to
license their encoding patents. Also, it is possible that the use of
encoding software for MPEG-2 is more actively litigated. Do you know
which of these is the case? It would be nice to know how Debian makes
decisions on things like this. When it comes to patented codecs, what
constitutes "safe enough"? How does one determine if the patents for
a codec are being "actively litigated"?
Denver
5. http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-agreement.cfm (sections (1) and (2))
Reply to: