It only sounds like a problem [LWN.net]

It only sounds like a problem

Posted Feb 15, 2007 20:37 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483)
Parent article: Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Designers (internetnews.com)

If they'll just release the format specification for Flash 9, we can take
this problem right out of their hands.

(Log in to post comments)

It only sounds like a problem

Posted Feb 15, 2007 20:38 UTC (Thu) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

Not quite. There's at least one patent-covered codec involved, so that'd have to be solved too.

It only sounds like a problem

Posted Feb 15, 2007 21:18 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

with full API specs for the codec, it could be wrapped by opensource code (and run in qemu on non x86 platforms as needed) but the codec itself could be distributed per the patent restrictions.

It only sounds like a problem

Posted Feb 16, 2007 0:48 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Having a patent on a codec doesn't preclude it being 'open source'.

It just makes redistribution and use in other programs very troubling. It would be open source, non-free software.

Besides which we have a Free software codec support that will be able to replace what Adobe can't legally 'Free' themselves.

It only sounds like a problem

Posted Feb 15, 2007 21:25 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]

We've got a solution for that - not having software patents.
Just because something's not useful in the US doesn't mean it's
not useful.

It only sounds like a problem

Posted Feb 15, 2007 21:28 UTC (Thu) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

Oh, don't worry, it'll be a problem wherever you are soon enough, and likely before it goes away in the US. The money's on the wrong side of this fight.

Still a US problem

Posted Feb 20, 2007 8:48 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Let's hope not. It's in our hands to make something, and there's money on both sides of the table.

all codecs are covered by patents

Posted Feb 16, 2007 1:48 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]

All (useful) video codecs are covered by patents (yes, even Theora) yet this has never been a hindrance to open source implementations.

theora and patents

Posted Feb 16, 2007 5:29 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

As I understand it, the patents that cover Theora have been donated with a free license by On2, their owner. If you believe otherwise, please point to some evidence.

theora and patents

Posted Feb 16, 2007 5:47 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

The people that created VP3 donated their patents that they've received so that we can have Theora.

That is not to say that they have donated ALL patents, because they do not own all of them that cover VP3. There is a lot of things that Theora do that mpeg4 codecs do and the mpeg4 folks charge money for.

I don't have proof about this as I don't understand the math behind encoding and such. But If you search through the ffmpeg mailing lists you can find people responding to this question time to time.

My limited understanding is that people on the ffmpeg lists say that Theora is infinging against a number of patents (not owned by On2), but so is everybody else. Also the patents are invalid due to prior art and all that.

I am not a lawyer but it seems safest just to ignore it and assume Theora is safe. But also not to be scared of shipping other codecs support coming out of places like ffmpeg, just as long as your able to quickly respond if there is a problem.