Multi-Platform Video Codec Seeks New Home 125
We started our journey as an
open-source
project contest in response to DivX, before
DivX networks came into
being. Due to a variety of issues (not the least of which was our
main investor pulling out and funding having to come out of my own
pocket), we mutated into a closed-source project that we intended to
distribute ourselves through the help of a third party. We finished
product development almost a year ago and have a really great
portable video codec that runs on Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.
The problem we've run into is that with the economy being as it is,
our candidates for distribution assistance have also all dried up.
We've considered just GPL'ing it and seeing what the open-source
community could do with it, but don't have anyone to oversee changes
and official versions, not to mention from the looks of the DivX 4.0
project, there don't seem to be a lot of people interested in (or
with the knowledge to) work on video codecs.
More or less, we've got a bunch of very well written CodeWarrior
projects that need to find a new home as we don't really have the
expertise or financing to sell it or even give it away. So, I'm
interested in knowing if anyone has any suggestions for what to do
with the project, or interest in taking it over (those with
experience with this kind of thing)."
If seriously interested, you can contact Eric using the mailto link at the beginning of this article.
Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:3, Insightful)
Au Contraire... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's helpful in getting it known, which is worth rather a lot.
The codec would not in that form be usable outside of the context of freely-redistributable software. Someone who wants to integrate it into their cool, but proprietary viewer would find that they can't, at least not with the GPL-licensed version.
That can't represents the place where they can look for their revenues.
It's not obvious that there can possibly be interest in it without there being some sort of release; the company hasn't money to spend on renting Times Square to show the world they've got a K001 Product.
Releasing under something like the GPL may be the only way to get it into use, and to get any return from it.
Re:Au Contraire... (Score:3, Insightful)
//rdj
Dual Licensing, Indeed. (Score:2)
Re:Au Contraire... (Score:1)
Otherwise, the code they contribute will be released under GPL as well, and he (no longer being the sole copyright holder) would have to gain their permission to release the updated code under a non-GPL license. As copyright holders, they could object.
It's kind of hard to get people to work on a project for free when it's apparent that your intention is to immediately release it under a non-open license. Usually, you have to pay those guys.
The net effect? You've exposed your codec's guts to the world without being able to easily commercialize any of the benefits of being open-sourced.
I'm not forgetting anything there. (Score:1, Redundant)
More pointedly, I would direct you to an Interview with L. Peter Deutsch [devlinux.org] which addresses the precise issues surrounding copyright assignment that you seem to think so daunting.
Ghostscript has been not finding them to be a problem for a lot of years now.
Re:I'm not forgetting anything there. (Score:1)
Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you intent to get some money with it GPLing shouldn't ruin the plan. If somebody wants to use this codec commercially they probably sell closed source program with it and cannot therefore use codec without purchasing different license. GPL doesn't restrict from releasing product under another product simultaneously. One could even claim that GPL version would be a full-featured demo to sell codec.
If the codec does something revolutional like not using DCT and interpolation between keyframes then not to GPL it may be a good idea because ideas aren't restricted by copyright. Without money you cannot patent it and that would be only yet another hated software patent anyway.
Whether or not the use of GPLed codec would be legal in Windows or MacOS is another question. Most programs in these platforms are closed and cannot therefore link with GPLed code. Strictly interpreted this means that you cannot use GPLed codec in say for example WMP. On the other hand WMP may be claimed to be part of OS and GPL allows linking with OS libraries...
Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:1)
That's an interesting loophole. So M$ can claim that IE is part of the OS and link any GPL-library with it. Doesn't this defeat the protection that many GPL-authors seek from the use of GPL?: "M$ can't take x and use it in their proprietary software"
Is there a clear definition of OS libraries in the GPL? It seems that one can 'pervert' this to mean just about any library that is/can be installed in the system and can be called by applications.
Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:1, Informative)
Basically, the GPL OS exception includes anything on the CD. In Windows' case that includes IE, WMP, Notepad, etc.
Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:1)
Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:2)
The question is if this sort of add-on is allowed. I believe it is, but there may be more information.
MSoft can be a pain and license the header files so they cannot be included by GPL code, their management has threatened to do this but I think their engineers may be showing a little backbone recently and stopping them from being totally mindless assholes.
Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:2)
Well it's easier to throw out perceptually redundant high frequency information in the frequencey domain, so almost any CODEC is going to start with SOME sort of frequency transform, whether DCT (MPEG, H.26x), DWT (wavelets) or even plain old FFT.
Reality also dictates that one movie frame is related to the previous one (except on MTV), so a keyframe difference mechanism is also pretty much mandatory for good compression.
Advances in video compression are really more in the details (e.g. CU30) than in the overall techniques applied. The only way to get radically better compression is going to be to transmit a model of the scene rather than the pixels themselves.
Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! (Score:1)
Prentice Hall would have sold a ton of these [amazon.com] if they had GPL'd Minix.
Re:What I'd like to know is... (Score:3, Interesting)
And if Vorbis is any indication of the quality level that Monty, et al want to achieve with Tarkin, it's going to kick some serious ass.
To be on topic, if you guys aren't getting anywhere with investing, it may be worthwhile to see if the Tarkin guys are interested. I mean, if you're really thinking about giving it away anyway, maybe you can give some another project some serious help.
Give it to academia (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that where our favoriate things like fetch came from?
Re:Give it to academia (Score:1)
Give it to Canadians, they're nice people.
Ogg Tarkin (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, OK, OK.... (Score:3, Funny)
The problem is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The problem is... (Score:2, Flamebait)
1. Write closed-source codec (just what the world need another one of).
2. Find that you're not able to make money on it.
3. Pretend you're thinking of making it open source so that your slashdot submission gets accepted.
4. Get tons of free exposure; hope that some sucker buys it from you as a result. Who cares if it'll probably be closed source afterwards?
Fortunately, I bet that there aren't any such suckers out there.
Vanilla Ice speaks tha truth again
Re:The problem is... (Score:1)
anyswer = little buzz + nothing.
the people who read slashdot are broke college guys, and middle aged sysadmins holding on to the last thread they have in this hell hole of an economy.
no one here but us nerds!
Re:The problem is... (Score:1)
It sounded to me like they started this company during the tech bubble, but I think they were just trying to cash in on the side. The real goal seems to have been the codec itself. I don't see where they made a mistake.
Re:The problem is... (Score:1)
Food, cats, wife? (Score:1)
Re:The problem is... (Score:2)
Re:The problem is... (Score:3, Funny)
Step 1) Steal Underpants
Step 2)
Step 3) Profit!
Re:The problem is... (Score:1)
1. Write codec
2.
3. Profit
Have you thought about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, what about companies that are working on video colaboration. Generally they have in house codecs that they write, but they are not always targeted for multiple os's.
Zro
Re:Have you thought about... (Score:1)
Oh dear, another ignorant soul who doesn't know the difference between the container format (Quicktime) and a codec (Sorenson).
Quicktime is just a wrapper around any codec you want to use. Currently that tends to be Sorenson 3 as its the best one shipped. I also watch various Divx movies that are in Quicktime format, since I installed the plugin that lets me do that.
Since he says it works on Mac OS, the chances are he already has a Quicktime plugin for his codec. Infact, he'd be insane *not* to package it in one of the major container formats as these have "install on demand" support.
User goes to a page with a movie in their wizzy new codec, and, if he can get the deal set up, Quicktime just says "you don't have the codec you need to see this movie click ok to download and install now?".
Re:Have you thought about... (Score:1)
Actually, the Quicktime container format forms the basis for the MPEG-4 standard (which is itself a container format).
MPEG-4 also suffers from confusion between "MPEG-4 the container format spec" and MPEG-4 the video compression codecs currently being used. Of course, the companies like to call it just MPEG-4 because it makes it sound better than MPEG, MPEG-2 and MP3.
Both Quicktime and WMF are moving towards or already do support MPEG-4. So perhaps one day each codec can be packaged only one and used with any MPEG-4 compatible container format.
Assuming Apple and Microsoft don't "improve" on the standard, of course.
CAN I BE YOUR VC ANGEL? (Score:1, Funny)
thoughts (Score:1)
You should see how it does as closed-source first if that was your plan in the beginning, and open it up later if you decide its not doing as well as you wanted it to.
I'm not happy with DivX (Score:2)
Of course if Quicktime ever officially goes Linux (I doubt WMP ever will) you'll have many more codecs to contend with. And you need to either promote it, or make it so incredibly good everyone switches. DivX sucks compared to newer open source and cross platform codecs but it's very popular because of the name.
Give it to gstreamer. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Give it to gstreamer. (Score:2)
Many open source projects use patented technologies; it is just that since they can't afford any license fee for the patents, when a patent owner gets upset the open source project has to code around the patent, (which has been done more than once.)
Re:supply/demand and Erics poor business model ! (Score:2)
Making money from a codec (Score:3, Interesting)
One option is to provide the compressor/decompressor for free and then offer a higher quality version of the compressor for sale. It's a tough market, though. If it's truly revolutionary, you could try selling it to Apple, Microsoft, or Real. You'll need some really good side-by-side comparisons with their current codecs and MPEG4 to get their attention, though.
Personally, I would love to see it open sourced.
Can we download a decompressor and see some demos?
Re:supply/demand and Erics poor business model ! (Score:1)
Writing a new codec - if it's good enough - could lead to many many new things.
So basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just kidding, everyone does that.
quality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would that work? Because there are a lot of codecs, and unless you can show that this one is better than the others, I really don't see why people would be interested.
And overhead (Score:3, Interesting)
It all depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
Waht do you want from it? (Score:3, Insightful)
How competetive is it? DivX/MPEG-4 even if patent encumbered is now available in an open source version from the ffmpeg project, and there are other open source CODECs available that are competetive to or even better than DivX such as VP3 or the amazing CU30.
If your CODEC can compete with the alternatives then it would probably be instantly adapted by the Ogg Tarkin paroject which is looking to deliver an open source CODEC but so far is really only at the research stage.
If your CODEC csn't compete head-in with the state of the art, then maybe you're better off looking to embed it in an application (e.g. a cross platform ICQ video conference helper) where the utility outweighs anything else.
Wow - what a business plan (Score:1)
This is insane and shows everything that was wrong with the way VC money was being invested in recent times. What did you expect to happen - that the problems of having no way to turn a profit or even see any income would have solved themselves by the time you had developed the code?
Having had 2 previous companies attempt the same thing (and Im assuming there was more to it than just a simple renaming) this also indicates that things may not have been very well planned - youve clearly failed twice already.
Best of luck finding a way to make use of your product, and hopefully youll think a bit more before going for attempt 4!
Re:Wow - what a business plan (Score:4, Informative)
Though I guess that is something that people will want to see for themselves, and that's where we are stuck, we don't even have the funding for the legal help to get it into testers hands. After working on this as hard as I have, I would hate to see the project just die w/out it seeing the light of day. That's why I asked for possible answers from Slashdot. Maybe someone can think of something we haven't. Its happened before.
Protect your ideas! (Score:1)
Be sure to protect your ideas by either patenting them yourself or just by publicising them. As long as you have not yet publicised the codec and shown "prior art", someone else may beat you to it and patent the idea!
Then the project would surely be dead - so get it out in the light!
Did I just read that right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, earlier you were talking about 'thinking about GPL'ing it' and having trouble 'giving it away'.....
...but you can't give it away because you can't pay lawyers to help you give it away?
Something fundamentally wrong with that....
At any rate, if you're sincere and not just fishing for investors, I'll add my metaphorical voice to those suggesting contacting the Ogg people over at xiph.org, who I'm sure would LOVE to have a " very light and highly portable [...] patent and copyright free" set of code to use with the Ogg Tarkin project...if you REALLY want to see it get out into the world...
Website incomplete? (Score:1)
Sadly in today's world success in a venture like this depends largely on marketing, but I think the
An idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now pimp the hell out of the GPL version and everyone that whines about how they can't use it in their closed source products, point them to your web page explaining how to contact you/your company for commercial licensing terms. Also perhaps consider a joint distribution agreement up front with some commercial video tool providers whereby you will develop plug ins, etc. I gather your point is this might be hard in this climate. Also consider getting pr0n distributors to use it. No, I'm not kidding. Honestly, people download pr0n from usenet, etc. If there is pr0n out there in your video format, people will get players for it. This will eventually convince commercial users that your format is worthwhile. There are plenty of Linux/Mac pr0n viewing folks out there, so you definitely will find some rapid fans if you take this tactic.
Anyway, this is my advice for a bootstrapped marketing technique that you might find effective. I make no promises, but it sounds like you don't have much to lose if you are posting to Ask Slashdot for marketing advice (hint: lots of
Re:An idea... (Score:1)
Re:An idea... (Score:1)
The only issues that arise are when other people start to have some copyright interest in your product; then, in order to distribute it under proprietary terms, you must have their permission as well.
This is why, for instance, Sleepycat Software requires patch submitters to assign the copyright for the patch to Sleepycat before they apply the patch to the official Berkeley DB code. Something like that approach seems neccessary unless you want to end up maintaining two codebases: the GPL one and the proprietary one.
Contact TrollTech! (Score:1)
Qt is available under GPL for X11/Unix and for commercial licensing for X11/Unix, MacOS and Windows. Anyone could actually port the X11/Unix version to Windows, but noone have, AFAIK.
Or release it under a BSD license like Ogg [xiph.org]! The codec will get more widespread use, but it will be harder to make any money from it.
Screenshots? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet another video codec. Does anyone really care?
If it were you... (Score:3, Informative)
You're posting to the the wrong site... (Score:3, Funny)
I have an idea. (Score:2, Funny)
Have you thought about using it to encode and decode video. video codecs a can often be quite useful in that respect. Why not give it a try?
quick ca$h (Score:1)
they win in that it is
1. less competition
2. borrow the technology
you win
1. you can swim in a lake full of cash
--donabal
Re:quick ca$h (Score:1)
"Like my hat? It's made of MONEY!"
With apologies to the good folks at Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com], of course. If their archive search wasn't a Windows-only executable (whatever happened to web-based searching, guys?) then I'd even link to the right comic. But alas, it was not meant to be.
Re:Your sig (Score:1)
Oh and about your last comment--you bet I do!
The only think that makes your CODEC worthwhile... (Score:5, Interesting)
If we're going to use an algorithm encumbered by patents, we might as well use MPEG-4 [telecomitalialab.com].
However if your CODEC is not covered by any patents, then please consider releasing it under a BSD [fsf.org] or GPL [fsf.org] license.
For information on why software patents are bad for free software, please visit The League for Programming Freedom [mit.edu]
I think these guys are the Underwear Gnomes. (Score:3, Funny)
Phase 1 - Develop new video codec
Phase 2 - Do some, uh, business stuff
Phase 3 - Make LOTS of money!
I know what you really want (Score:1)
I'm sure we can fit you in somewhere... (Score:4, Offtopic)
Oh! 3iv1 3iv2, aasc abyr and aemi too! afli, aflc boy those are old! AMPG, ANIM, AP41 and you! Think of how your home videos will look, in ASV1, ASV2 or ASVX!! Mine look great, and I'm sure yours will too, with AUR2 or AURA!
And out of the A's and into the B's la da da do do do deeee! Bink, bt20, btcv bw10, boy those b's are short! Those B codec makers better get a move on! But onto the c's like the birds and the bees, cc12, cdvc, cfcc, cgdi, cham, cjpg, cpla, cram, cvid cwlt, cyuv, cyuy! Boy these things multiply fast! Makes me wonder, why the're called video codecs, and not WABBITS!
But D's come along, DIV2 and DIV4 and DIV5, with venerable DIVX short behind. DMB1, DMB2, DSVD, DUCK, DVAN, DVSD, DVE2, DVX1, DVX2, DVX3, DXTN, DXTC, and no more D's do we have! And the E's are short, because normal people don't start video codecs with vowels, ETV1, ETV2, ETVC are all that survive.
Only 3 F's, because F stands for Flunk, FLJP, FRWA, FRWD are fun! Oh my! GLZW, GPEG, GWLT from Microsoft? But videoconferencing still lives H260 goes plop, followed by H261, and H262, H263, H264, H265, H266, H267, H268, But finally everyone knows H269! HFYU, HMCR, and HMRR round out the H's!
(Egad, am I done yet!)
Not hardly buddy! There's I263, IAN, ICLB, IGOR, IJPG, ILVC, ILVR, IPDV, IR21, IV30, IV31, IV32, IV33, IV34, IV35, IV36, IV37, IV38, IV39, IV40, IV41, IV42, IV43, IV44, IV45, IV46, IV47, IV48, IV49, and IV50 rounds out Intel's evil contribution! But wait! There's more! Call now and you'll receive this free JBYR, JPGL, KMVC, and LEAD, LJPG.
Not to worry, M is here! Here are all the ways Micro$oft can fuck a standard! M263, M261, MP42, MP43, MP4S, MPG4, MRLE, MSVC Oh my! I like MJPG, cause my marvel uses it, but Matrox also has MTX1, MTX2, MTX3, MTX4, MTX5, MTX6, MTX7, MTX8, MTX9! More M's! mJPG is not the same as MJPG? MCAM, MC12, MPEG, MRCA, MWV1, nAVI, NTN1, NVS0, NVS1, NVS2, NVS3, NVS4, NVS5, NVT0, NVT1, NVT2, NVT3, NTT4, NVT5, PDVC, PGVV, PIM1, PIM2, PIMJ, PVEZ, PVMM, PVW2, qpeg, QPEG, RGBT, RLE, RT21, rv20, rv30, RVX, s422, SDCC, SFMC, SMSC, SMSD, smsv, SPIG, SQZ2, SV10, STVA, STVB, STVC...oh god I'm getting bored...STVX, STVY, SVQ1, TLMS, TLST, TM20, TM2X, TMIC, TMOT, TR20 TSCC, TV10, TY2C, TY2N, TY0N, UCOD, ULTI, V261, VCR1, VCR2, VDOM, VDOW, VDTZ, VGPX, VIFP, VIDS, VIVO, VIXL, VLV1, VP30, VP31, VX1k, VX2K, VXSP, WBVC, WHAM, WINX, WJPG, WNV1, x263, XLV0, XMPG, XXAN, Y41P....almost there! Y8, YC12, YUV8, YUV2, YUYV, ZLIB, ZPEG!
And that ends my really bad song. But wait! Thre's more! Those are only the ones with FOURCC definitions! That doesn't include file types! There's MPEG-PS, AVI, Quicktime, and the venerable Microsoft format heist asf.
I think the statement "I developed a new video codec!" should be punishable by death.
--Bob
Re:I'm sure we can fit you in somewhere... (Score:1)
Re:I'm sure we can fit you in somewhere... (Score:1)
HMCR, UYVY, UYNV, IF09, YVU9, YV12, Y211, YVYU, RAW8, YVU9,
Poor management (Score:1)
What to do with it?! (Score:1)
Not to be (overly) sarcastic, but maybe you should have thought of that before spending first your investors money and then your own? Isnt it a little late for that now?
Just a thought!
A loving home awaits (Score:1)
helpful replies (Score:1)
Re:helpful replies (Score:1)
true, only allowing one browser on the site is foolish - we point and laugh. happens all the time. what we don't know is that the two previous businesses he mentioned failed - maybe the name was changed for some reason. as for business plan, it's reasonable to assume that they failed miserably at it, but then again, when one has investors backing them, you are only concentrating on getting the product working. perhaps this guy (and one or two others) are all that's left of the original team - the marketers and salespeople all left for greener pastures already. if they're developers without capital, how can they expect to market something?
in any case, this is a guy asking for help, suggestions, or whatever, and what he's getting is "shove it up your ass" and "you're an idiot" and "your company sucks." he, himself, didn't fail - the codec is written and working (supposedly). someone else gets paid to sell it. now that there's no money, he's looking for other solutions. how many of the threads here are actually helpful in that regard?
Seriously.. (Score:2)
Unfortunately I was unable to view the page in my linux browser (sending me to a page to teach me about standards..) then after downloading an activex pane each page there is no content. Too bad since you have all these people looking. In particular comparing it right against Sorenson and WMP with nothing behind your words makes you wonder if you want to touch something like this out of the blue.
Anybody who could help is going to need more subtantial information, for example what you think are the pros/cons of the software as compared to competitors in your space, to help with diligence. GPL might be one way to do it, and people might love you for it, but it will very likely hurt your chances on liscensing or selling it outright at this stage and getting your money back.
In particular a number of companies that are likely to listen are here in Japan but GPL is not something they want, unless maybe you already have a big team building it through GPL. They know tech and make quick decisions if everything is clear and up front, that's your challenge.
Re:Browser nazi! He blocks Netscape4.7 from his si (Score:2)