IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality
layer3maniac
post Nov 25 2001, 02:38
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 529
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 37



QUOTE
Bearing in mind that both MPC and PsyTEL AAC are 'closed' codecs, at least from the encoder standpoint, and that PsyTEL, unless I am mistaken is not even meant to be in 'free' circulation, wouldn't there be some mileage in some of the brains involved in the tuning of Lame diverting the attention to FAAC?

I realise that binary distribution of FAAC is 'verboten' in the patent context, but the source is freely available and compiles very readily with MinGW32 and other free compilers.

Are there any points I am missing here other than the lack of binary distrubtions? Although, that does not seem to preclude other patent/copyright bound codecs finding there way into distribution through the back door!!

Anybody any views on this? I applaud all the efforts in relation to Lame improvements, it would just be nice to see similar efforts being put into emerging technologies. Before anyone asks, I don't have either the degree of programming skills required, nor the knowledge of audio compression techniques, otherwise I'd be there.
I have wondered this as well. Why does NOBODY seem interested in working on tuning FAAC? Even Ivan, for that matter? Obviously, he could lend a GREAT DEAL of expertise in this matter. He relies on FAAD a great deal, perhaps he could contribute something back to Menno's encoder. I've never really been clear on PsyTEL's business plan, but surely FAAC, even if it's well tuned, wouldn't pose a real threat to steal any corporate customers since they would have to scrounge around for binaries and wouldn't really have ANY tech support.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Dibrom
post Nov 25 2001, 10:44
Post #2


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
It's not any harder to get binaries of aac encoders than it is mp3 encoders like Lame and Blade.


This most certainly is not the case. It is much easier to get binaries of LAME than it is to get binaries of AAC encoders. For one, the binaries of AAC are certainly illegal and will be taken down immediately if they are found out. With LAME there have been websites established for a long time, well known, which have everything necessary. As Ivan said, Fhg doesn't really care about LAME binaries. Dolby does care about AAC binaries.

QUOTE
And couldn't the exact same arguments about fairness to the opensource community be made against improving Lame, Vorbis, Linux or ANY opensource project for that matter? When Monty incorperates wavelets into Vorbis, couldn't commercial developers just study the code and utilize the technology?


No to the first question. Because these projects are not commercial by nature. AAC is commercial by nature and so is PsyTEL. It is a much more competitive market and it is not meant for the end user. LAME and Vorbis were never started for the purpose of being marketed commercially, so the situation is totally irrelevant in those cases.

In the case of at least Vorbis, they are not concerned with companies utilizing their technology, this is why it ships with a BSD license instead of a GPL license.

Two totally different situations you have there that cannot be directly related to eachother.

QUOTE
When Menno said:

[...]

I believed him. I accept the fact that you don't think it's in your best interest to help improve the quality, even though I don't fully understand it. But what about all the opensource Lame people? I also think that software patents in general, and especially those based on ISO standards, are due for a big court battle someday. That is - if they don't expire first...  smile.gif


For the record I can't see myself working on AAC as it currently exists. If I ever stop working on LAME (which with all things considered will likely happen sooner rather than later) I'll move directly to working on Vorbis. This would be the wisest choice for nearly anyone IMO.

I cannot see a valid argument for extensively working on a "free" AAC encoder and I'm not sure I can see anyone coming up with one. The technology is heavily restricted and a free implementation is under constant legal threat [b]now
. Vorbis, while you may still believe that it will someday have legal issues (without basis), does not suffer from this currently. Furthermore, binaries are easily accessible, as is the code, and the quality is MUCH higher than that of FAAC already. Add to that the fact that Vorbis is being incorporated into many end user programs and that it will likely be gaining hardware support soon.

So really.. what advantage at all does a free open source AAC project offer to the end user (research aside)? I'd really like to see some convincing arguments for this because I can't think of any.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- layer3maniac   FAAC, LAME, Opensource and Legality   Nov 25 2001, 02:38
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac I have w...   Nov 25 2001, 04:07
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Considering the fact that AAC is so encumber...   Nov 25 2001, 04:33
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac What leg...   Nov 25 2001, 05:03
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE If you have followed the history of FAAC som...   Nov 25 2001, 05:28
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE If you have followed the history of FAAC som...   Nov 25 2001, 05:35
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac So what?...   Nov 25 2001, 05:51
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by Dibrom If you have fol...   Nov 25 2001, 05:54
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Hardly, but if you would like to show me the...   Nov 25 2001, 06:09
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Furthermo...   Nov 25 2001, 06:32
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE I hardly think that people who disagree with...   Nov 25 2001, 07:34
- - Dibrom   layer3maniac: I'm not going to continue bother ar...   Nov 25 2001, 07:50
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac I think e...   Nov 25 2001, 08:46
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Regarding optimized free opensource AAC enco...   Nov 25 2001, 10:23
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac It's not...   Nov 25 2001, 10:44
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE   For one, the binaries of AAC are cert...   Nov 25 2001, 11:18
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac There ar...   Nov 25 2001, 11:35
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE You are missing something here.  Yes, t...   Nov 25 2001, 16:36
- - Ivan Dimkovic   No one here wants to put LAME binaries because it ...   Nov 25 2001, 16:57
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac I'm star...   Nov 25 2001, 17:21
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Ok people - there are three legal (more or less) d...   Nov 25 2001, 17:34
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE LOL!  Ok, you're telling me that I need...   Nov 25 2001, 17:40
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Freeware AAC is doomed from the start as far...   Nov 25 2001, 17:44
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Study the...   Nov 25 2001, 17:50
- - Dibrom   Geez... do you even read what people post before...   Nov 25 2001, 17:59
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE At this time, it seems there are no patent i...   Nov 25 2001, 17:59
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac How many...   Nov 25 2001, 18:01
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Ivan suggested that it is a waste to work on...   Nov 25 2001, 18:04
- - layer3maniac   See Dibrom, unlike you I didn't NEED Ivan to tell...   Nov 25 2001, 18:20
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Imagine you work on something that nobody is...   Nov 25 2001, 18:26
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Small clarification - FhG DID MP3 >E N C O D E ...   Nov 25 2001, 18:29
- - JohnV   QUOTE Dibrom wrote: A freeware ISO AAC implementat...   Nov 25 2001, 18:35
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE - FhG never hunted free decoders Tell that t...   Nov 25 2001, 18:36
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac As I star...   Nov 25 2001, 18:37
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Dolby isn't fighting free ISO aac implementa...   Nov 25 2001, 18:39
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Dolby is...   Nov 25 2001, 18:49
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Dolby is...   Nov 25 2001, 18:49
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Oh please.. that's about the most pathetic e...   Nov 25 2001, 18:49
- - Dibrom   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Gee Dibr...   Nov 25 2001, 18:58
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Gee Dibr...   Nov 25 2001, 18:59
- - Ivan Dimkovic   I advise everyone to take a look at the 1998 snaps...   Nov 25 2001, 19:04
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Ok, layer3maniac, this is going totally off-...   Nov 25 2001, 19:04
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Also, for you and Tord regarding MP3 DECODERS: ht...   Nov 25 2001, 19:14
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE We have been talking about free ISO AAC. Tha...   Nov 25 2001, 19:17
- - JohnV   Ok, messages containg Off-Topic or personal things...   Nov 25 2001, 19:20
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Conclusion: From the very beginning of AAC c...   Nov 25 2001, 19:22
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Opensour...   Nov 25 2001, 19:26
- - Dibrom   layer3maniac: Enough of this. You are not longer...   Nov 25 2001, 19:28
- - Ivan Dimkovic   You know what I mean: A LEGAL free decoder, and th...   Nov 25 2001, 19:28
- - JohnV   QUOTE Originally posted by layer3maniac Impossib...   Nov 25 2001, 19:32
- - layer3maniac   QUOTE Lame and free ISO AAC are not treated the sa...   Nov 25 2001, 19:36
- - Dibrom   Thread locked.   Nov 25 2001, 20:00


Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th August 2014 - 17:51