Why not Xvid? [was codec optimization]

[salsaman]

John (J5) Palmieri wrote:

>On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 18:55 +0000, Zvi Devir wrote:
>  
>
>>Sorry for jumping ahead, but this something I really don't understand.
>>Let's assume that there are currently a few valid US patents on JPEG, 
>>MJPEG (There are probably more) as well as for MPEG4.2 (xvid divx wmv1 
>>and many more are MPEG4 part 2 implementations). My question is, so 
>>what? A patent is a territorial legal being -- it is valid only where it 
>>was granted. Even if JPEG is covered by hundreds of active US patents, 
>>and some unenforceable EU patents, it has nothing to do with countries 
>>in which the OLPCs will be distributed, since those patents are invalid 
>>there.
>>    
>>
>
>That is a good way to sabotage a project.  I'll leave the legal stuff up
>to our lawyers but taking a who cares attitude does not solve the issue.
>Countries can do what they want, which is why we are using the gstreamer
>framework.  If they feel that mp3 or mpeg or whatever is legal to put on
>the machines they can do it but we are not going to ship with patent
>encumbered formats which could put some countries in awkward positions.
>That is not a decision we can make for the people receiving the laptops.
>
>BTW Jpeg is obviously ok to use since I have yet to see a distro pull it
>out. Not sure about MJpeg.
>
>  
>

The jpeg patents expired some time last year. Mjpeg should be patent 
free as it is simply a sequence of jpegs (which was pointed out already).

Gabriel.
http://lives.sourceforge.net