I have a short announcement to make:

The matroska and Corecodec teams have decided to unify the efforts made in various projects around the matroska container, and to create a new, opensource and x-platform video muxing/editing/encoding tool together. It will be called

'TCME - The Core Media Editor'

and it will be released under a ( decision pending ) license.

The main purpose of this announcement is to motivate developers to join the discussion about the basic structure on the matroska mailing lists. http://lists.matroska.org or http://news.gmane.org , gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel

Thanks for your interest .....

My original post was obviously too long for the news portal, so JohnV told me to split it in 2 messages ... here is the 2nd part :

This new tool, once ready and working, will gradually replace the following matroska editing/creation tools :

- mkvmerge
- VirtualdubMod
- mkvextract
- mkvinfo
- MPEG2-to-MKV
- matroska stream editor

Main developers will be Cyrius and Mosu, assisted by robux4, jcsston, spyder 482 and maybe S_O . Hopefully more contributors will follow sooner or later, everybody who knows some C and/or C++ and has some basic video coding knowledge is invited to join the team.

Here a possible roadmap for the development :

1. Define basic structure, including the internal editing scripting
2. Define API for input/output modules
3. Allow muxing of MKV files, using different source formats
4. Implement simple cutting/editing based on frame number / timestamp
----- note : at this step mkvmerge becomes redundant
5. Add Preview for the most used and free formats ( via libavcodec ? licensing problems ? )
6. Implement enhanced one step editing, similar to Virtualdub ( mark areas to be deleted / copied )
7. Define a codec plugin API
8. Realize re-encoding of audio and video streams, using de/encoder plugins
----- note : at this step vdubmod becomes redundant
9. Adding NLE, with fades etc.

As the editor will allow output plugins also, the editor can well be extended to create/edit/output

- MP4 files
- RMVB files ( depending on RealNetworks licenses of course )
- MPEG files

so it will not be a sole matroska tool ( maybe MKV will be used as interims editing container for some steps, we'll see ), but could become a general, VFR capable replacement for Virtualdub. The GUI and the core application will be strictly separated, so the GUI ( written in wxwindows ) will only create scripts telling the app what to do with the file. This will make it very easy for the tool to be used from 3rd party apps ( like GKnot, DVX, DVD-to-MKV, etc. ).

Our to-do list now comprises :

1. Agree on a platform for this, i.e.
a. using Gstreamer, including a port of it to win32
b. using Helix ( license problems ? )
c. make a new platform, including media-api to allow format and codec plugins

2. Create a scripting language ( similar to avisynth, but more powerful in terms of editing ), as it will be the basis of the interfacing from GUI to app.

3. Convert existing code from mkvmerge into working input plugins, based on the API as decided under 1.

Ooh VirtualDubMod.

Oh, and what is QPL? Queens Public License?... Perhaps you can only use the software during Mardi-Gras parades or if you wear eyeliner...

I've no idea. I've clearly lost it. *!£%*^£!)%*^!£%

Edit: Does MKA support Variable Frame Rate and/or Frame Interpolation?

RuIAIRAIYREIUA

i really hope you can get beyond that, a good and simple - timeline based (resolution/bitdepth independant) freeware editing app would be really nice.

edit: mkay, i should wait for

I think they mean: Trolltech's QPL License

There is an interesting remark about this and other licenses at the GNU site.

can I get something from what you're smoking?
all right, enough ot posts, sorry

this looks interesting... VFR and NLE. could solve some of my problems.

any particular reason it's covered by QPL? i read the license and it seems to provide no significant advantages to GPL... but i'm not good at legalese, so maybe i missed something..

Are we finally going to get precise audio time stamps?

Does "x-platform" mean that there is hope for OS X support?

The using of the QPL license is discussed in detail here . I still dont get it why we have to defend ourselves for doing that, but thats life of free software developers it seems. You work hard and get slapped in return ....

About OSX : Yes, thats planned when we say 'x-platform' . robux4 owns an iBook, so .......

Oh, such drama, such angst!

Just to let everyone know.... we are discussing our licensing options now. Thanx to everyone for there suggestions and input. As of now we are leaning towards the GPL or LGPL route (QPL is still an option). Please remember we have many developers to ping this off of and they all must concent to a mutually agreed upon license.

eek... sorry i asked. i hadn't read that thread.

well, good luck with whatever license is chosen... the real issue here is of course the project, not the license after all.

it would be very exciting to have a high quality open NLE out there to really scare the current market... Premiere is clunky and held together with duct tape, and Final Cut Pro has never treated me well, though rumours from afar say it's useful (i have no first hand experience with that:))

i'm not sure what the plans are in that regard, but it'd be very cool. and of course usefullness:price ratio would do wonders to push matroska as a format.

... actually wouldn't the ratio of usefullness/price be infinity?

One of the problems with VirtualDub is that nobody ported it outside of win32, and also its still very .avi centric, so i see this project as a welcome initiative. In fact too many video edit/encoding tools are still win32 only...

BTW: I just read the doom9 forum, and if what Christian said there its true, im avoiding Matroska or at least TCME like the plague. Tx.

In these circumstances, GPL or BSD like, else no thanks. There is always someone else.



First option: Go ahead, and at least be honest that you did because you don't want mplayer to steal it, since thats your intent. Port to everything under the sun.
Second option: Thats... you might as well pick BSD type then.
Third option: Good, make sure you state your intentions very well.
Fourth option: What is exactly you want the community from, a promise that "certain people" will never use it? That is not what Freedom of free software is about, however if these people would hide changes and improvements made to your code and distribute it, that would violate the GPL.

If you are honest about the format thing (making it popular, blah, blah), pick the BSD license and don't mind if either Mplayer or Microsoft or anyone else use it in their propietary apps. Else pick GPL if you trust the free software movement and understand their phillosophy. Otherwise go propietary but prepare to do lots of work yourself and support all platforms if you want this getting popular, but then again you could disappear and the project would be gone, so.. we might as well pick something safer like... ogg



So what if someone does this? You can't force people, either you give the liberty, or you don't. Whats so bad of a TCME with matroska support removed? Don't you trust your own format? Why would somebody do that if it is a good format? And why you expect the community to do something about it if this is done? Under the BSD this could be done and you will never know, but under the GPL, at least you will know, but thats it.

About the licenses i think you should exchange some mails with both Richard Stallman and Eric S Raymond, and maybe some others. If your paranoia wins, proceed with closed source, but don't expect instant recognition unless you do a very good thing, and yet, alternatives may still appear...

Artemis, reading your post i cant help but thinking you are mixing up the matroska container project and the TCME video editor. Both have completely different intentions, and of course also different license types for their code. And, BTW, Ogg isnt 'safer' in respect because there are plans to support it from TCME, including Theora ....

But isn't the purpose of TCME to increase matroska popularity? If not, well never mind ^^!

Just make up your minds and state the intentions clearly.

Well, just so that you know. BSD type licence and copyrighted software without any license would actually be quite different. In the latter case you would have to seek permission from the autor for anything you want to do with it.

Maybe this has been discussed somewhere else, but there is also the CreativeCommons license formats.
CreativeCommons

Quick highlight below:

Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give you credit.

Example: Jane publishes her photograph with an Attribution license, because she wants the world to use her pictures provided they give her credit. Bob finds her photograph online and wants to display it on the front page of his website. Bob puts Jane's picture on his site, and clearly indicates Jane's authorship.

Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only.

Examples: Gus publishes his photograph with a Noncommercial license. Camille incorporates a piece of Gus's image into a collage poster. Camille is not allowed to sell her collage poster without Gus's permission.

No Derivative Works. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.

Example: Sara licenses a recording of her song with a No Derivative Works license. Joe would like to cut Sara's track and mix it with his own to produce an entirely new song. Joe cannot do this without Jane's permission (unless his song amounts to fair use).

Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

Note: A license cannot feature both the Share Alike and No Derivative Works options. The Share Alike requirement applies only to derivative works.

Later,
Cal.