[FFmpeg-devel] Intel IPP H264 encoder

[Erik Van Grunderbeeck]

>> You can call that zero information I suppose. There's also zero
information
>> in your question. What does settings mean? Samples? (bitrate? Quality?
>> Container? The amount of sugar in my coffee?)

>If you don't know what "encoder settings" means, I give up.

>It's zero information because the speed of an encode means nothing
>without the settings that encode was made at.

>> Your (L-)GLP license statement makes little sense btw (as the IPP
encoders
>> do not need to be compiled into the Libav* dll's. Unless you want to take
>> "viral" to a new level). "My license" refers to the part one purchases
from
>> Intel (the binaries).

>If you compile ffmpeg against the Intel libraries, it is no longer
>LGPL.  That's why compiling against libfaac, even via dynamic linking,
>requires --enable-nonfree.  You seem to know very little about
>software licenses; I suggest you speak to a lawyer.

>> Sigh. Trying to suggest/state anything on this mailing list that touches
the
>> [zealot] opinions of people is hopeless.

>Sometimes, when everyone disagrees with you, it's not because everyone
>else is "dumb" or a "zealot", but rather because you're wrong.

Or pushes the red wave of "what! Idiot! I am an ffmpeg/x264 developer and
you stink" away

Simply stated: compile ffmpeg

./configure --enable-memalign-hack --enable-shared --enable-avisynth
--enable-libmp3lame --enable-libvorbis --enable-libtheora
Make
Result: LGPL dll's

Compile whatever application, including the source file for the ipp encoder,
the intel libs, registering the encoder with a call to avcodec_register().  
App is whatever license it is. App uses avcodec lgpl dll's, and on
distribution does all the nice stuff nobody really wants to give an answer
on, including the reverse engineering option, the source distribution (and
if needed some smoking of crack, since that was suggested), et al.

Now; one could think that people would actually be interested in that. Since
quite a bit of the license violations seems to go around the gpl issue. 

One could even think that some people working on x264 might be interested in
having something that they could benchmark, or test, or do whatever mumbo
jumbo they want to do on it. Or that someone could use the rest of the
framework to do some things they, because the big bad people in legal do not
agree on open source, or name it.

Now, this all assumes that a) people think 2 minutes before they type
something b) people don't assume that anything they have carefully crafted
for years is the holy grail c) people who shout out loud that they believe
in "open source"/"sharing" don't get on their high horse, throwing snippy
remarks or insults around when their piece of open source is compared to
something else. All wishful thinking, I suppose.

Now, I suppose I could run everything through some carefully crafted
scripts, making a couple of metrics and distributions on residues, packet
sizes, processor loads, cache usage and everything you can throw in there. I
was certainly planning to do so, but at the end it doesn't matter. Carefully
think about some reasons, I am sure one can find some (including some that a
13 year old with a bad attitude can throw up). 

No worries, I wont bother anyone with the results, or the code, since
obviously it has been developed on crack, with no idea whats going on,
resting in a legal swamp.

Have a nice day all