[Development] QWebEngine - H.264 playback, proprietary codecs.
sschilz at pasco.com
Wed Jul 20 01:57:11 CEST 2016
I have been going over the MPEG-LA writings on the web, and find no convincing argument that you can
release a decoder for free. You can distribute videos for free, but if you sell them, or distribute an encoder
or decoder you are apparently liable for fees if you sell > 100K units per year.
A quote from: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf
MPEG-LA online summary of terms:
AVC/H.264 License Terms
Codec Manufacture and Sale
o Products sold to end users and OEM for PC but not part of OS (decoder, encoder or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = “unit”)
o 0 - 100,000 units/year = no royalty (available to one legal entity in an affiliated group)
o US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units/year
o Above 5 million units/year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit
o Enterprise cap:
$3.5M per year 2005-2006,
$4.25M per year 2007-08,
$5M per year 2009-10,
$6.5Mper year 2011-2015;
$8.125M in 2016 and
$9.75M per year in 2017 through 2020
This amounts to $20,000 us as soon as you exceed the minimum.
Also note that AAC audio codec that is normally used with H.264 is a separate, and apparently more expensive license,
Although I have not read about that as much.
PASCO scientific - think science
On Mon July 18, Steve Schilz Wrote:
> Thiago, Allan, Thanks for responding.
> Probably complicated indeed! Qt in general does a pretty great job of shielding us from lots of complexity.
> I need to look into the ?Free for decoding? part more carefully, as that is my immediate need.
> It seemed worth mentioning, and certainly imho makes QWebEngine all the more attractive if it could be made to work.
On Weds July 16: Allan SandField Jensen Wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:21:16 +0200
>>From: Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde at carewolf.com<mailto:kde at carewolf.com>>>
>>To: development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Development] QWebEngine - H.264 playback, proprietary codecs.
> >That sounds a bit complicated, since it needs to hook into Chromiums media
>>backend and have a download mechanism.
>>Note activating it the codecs is not a matter of cost. AFAIK the h.264 and
>>h.265 codecs are currently patented but royalty free to decode. This makes it
>>possible for our customers to activate them without paying anyway. This is
>>however just the status quo, and I am not sure I want to risk enabling
>>something that might make the open-source package something that you need to
>>pay for in the future, which is why we prefer to stick with the same codecs
>>Google makes available in their free open source browser Chromium.
>>I would be more interested in making it easier to enable, or maybe offer
>>somehow. It is just something we have to make sure we offer without
>>guaranteeing it is and will remain free.
On Wednesday 13 July 2016, Steve Schilz wrote:
>>>windows. According to QWebEngineFeatures Doc,
>>>http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-features.html#pepper-plugin-api You must
>>>pass a flag to qmake, WEBENGINE_CONFIG+=use_proprietary_codecs, and build
>>>Qt from source yourself in order to support h.264 video decoding.
>>>In researching this, I became aware that Cisco provides a downloadable
>>>binary codec, where Cisco pays the MPEG-LA royalties. Apparently this is
>>>the method used To provide h.264 playback in Firefox. If you watch the
>>>intellectual property rights video at
>>>http://vimeo.com/cullenfluffyjennings/openh264-ipr, they explain why they
>>>Did this, and how you can even make changes to the codec via open source
>>>Would it make sense for QWebEngine to support this codec, in order to be
>>>able to provide ?out of the box? (via download at end user?s computer),
>>>support for h.264 playback in <video> tags?
More information about the Development