Even if they did, it wouldn’t matter – lawyers use arbitrators and the legal system, not technical standards procedures to work through disagreements. Which one has more risk? It would take lots of lawyers to sort through this and no one pays for lawyers to go to standards meetings. There are certainly inherent issues with H.264. The H.264 camp speculated that there could be legal issues with VP8 despite Google’s claims otherwise. Furthermore, we have provided a binary form suitable for inclusion in applications across a number of different operating systems, and make this binary. Development and maintenance will be overseen by a board from industry and the open source community. VP8 yielded no overwhelming winner (they are both great codecs), the debate has more recently revealed it’s true form as a mostly IPR related issue. Cisco has taken their H.264 implementation, and open sourced it under BSD license terms.

While debate over the technical merits of H.264 vs. Quick debate recapĮngineers don’t like lawyers, and as Victor mentioned in his post earlier this week, much of the debate over assigning a mandatory video codec for WebRTC has been about avoiding the lawyers.

MP4 (Based on JCodec) MJPEG (libJPEG-Turbo) H264 (OpenH264). Given the news from Cisco yesterday we figured this warranted a quick follow-up post beyond what we could add to the comments area. On Linux, I have OpenH264 Video Codec by Cisco and Widevine Content Decryption Module by Google as Firefox addons. This library provides Java support for the following video formats. We had a lot of traffic to Victor’s post on the WebRTC mandatory video codec earlier this week.

Openh264 video codec