you even cite the source but can read the paradox on "open source [...] and provide a binary blob"? Read the response from Firefox to understand. If you are not a coder, than i apologize and provide a car analogy :) they are giving out cars with the engine bay shut, but they are providing 3D files under BSD license so you can print a glove and a shoe to use when driving the car. And the shoes and gloves are so bad, the the mozilla driver said he will just sew his own and use the car for free, which he still has no idea which engine it is using or what fuel it takes.
as i said, no "significant code" will be provided. The code they are open sourcing is HEADER FREAKING FILES for the entry points on the binary blob.
It is the exact same thing as nvidia provides. and nvidia even provides the header files as GPL! so let's all go buy nvidia drivers as they have GPL OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS PROVIDED BY NVIDIA! huray!
FAQ[1] implies this is not the case, and that the source will correspond to the binary. The only thing the binary will bring that the source itself will not is the MPEG LA licensing.
> Q. Why is Cisco making both source and binary versions available?
> A: The source code is available so that an implementation of H.264 is available for the community to use across any project, and to leverage the community to make the codec better for all. We will select licensing terms that allow for this code to be used in commercial products as well as open source projects. In order for Cisco to be responsible for the MPEG LA licensing royalties for the module, Cisco must provide the packaging and distribution of this code in a binary module format (think of it like a plug-in, but not using the same APIs as existing plugins), in addition to several other constraints. This gives the community the best of all worlds - a team can choose to use the source code, in which case the team is responsible for paying all applicable license fees, or the team can use the binary module distributed by Cisco, in which case Cisco will cover the MPEG LA licensing fees.
Ah ok, so they are pretty much making a bad implementation public so it is easier to sue open source alternatives since now they can't deny seeing the code... nice move.
I think you're confused here. Let me try to explain with an example. Mozilla provides sources and binary blobs both. The latter in no way negates the former.
Cisco will be providing sources and binary blobs both, and the latter in no way negates the former.
Yes, there's "a catch". The catch is, though you get a BSD code license on the source that allows you to redistribute the the source, you do not get a patent license for shipping products based on that source. The only patent protection you can get from Cisco is from their specific binary.
Cisco's isn't the first open source H264 codec and it won't be the last, but it's the only one that comes with patent help and that's what makes it different from the others.
as i said, no "significant code" will be provided. The code they are open sourcing is HEADER FREAKING FILES for the entry points on the binary blob.
It is the exact same thing as nvidia provides. and nvidia even provides the header files as GPL! so let's all go buy nvidia drivers as they have GPL OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS PROVIDED BY NVIDIA! huray!