French laws don't recognize software patents so videolan doesn't either. This is likely a reference to vlc supporting h265 playback without verifying a license. These days most opensource software pretends that the h265 patents and licensing fees don't exist for convenience. I believe libavcodec is distributed with support enabled by default.

Nearly every device with hardware accelerated h265 support has already had the license paid for, so there's not much point in enforcing it. Only large companies like Microsoft and Red Hat bother.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

They bother because they are US based and can be hounded by the patent ~~trolls~~ holders

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

let’s not go too far though… the holders of h264/h265 did put a lot of money and effort into developing the codec: a new actual thing… they are not patent trolls, who by definition produce nothing new other than legal mess

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

On the other hand, Fraunhofer is obnoxious enough about licensing and enforcement that companies like Google invested similar money and effort into developing open-source codecs just to avoid dealing with them.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago

There are good FOSS codecs and there are good proprietary codecs. The latter are being standardized where the former may not, and pushed where they are not needed.

It's not a market choice.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)