| |||||||||||||
Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the webBlizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the webPosted Jan 26, 2010 13:08 UTC (Tue) by __alex (subscriber, #38036)In reply to: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web by DonDiego Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
ffmpeg has absolutely no royalty paid decoders in it at all and basically an
enormous liability for everyone involved.
Things like gstreamer, directshow and quicktime at least provide the
(Log in to post comments)
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 16:58 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
You can of course use FFmpeg and pay the MPEG-LA if you are so inclined. There are companies that do it. The MPEG-LA could not care less which implementation is used.
Mozilla could use a system FFmpeg just like Chrome does. No patent liabilities would be incurred on Mozilla.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:09 UTC (Tue) by __alex (subscriber, #38036) [Link]
It's not nearly as simply as just dropping ffmpeg in instead of Xiph though. As
you said, they'd have to pay for the license themselves for one. Outsourcing decoding to system APIs get's around that.
Also I'm not sure they could pay MPEG-LA and still maintain the re-
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:33 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> It's not nearly as simply as just dropping ffmpeg in instead of Xiph
> though. As you said, they'd have to pay for the license themselves for > one. Outsourcing decoding to system APIs get's around that.
False. There is no need for Mozilla to distribute FFmpeg libraries with H.264 decoding capabilities themselves.
> Also I'm not sure they could pay MPEG-LA and still maintain the
This is nonsense FUD. Please back up your claims or refrain from making them.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:45 UTC (Tue) by __alex (subscriber, #38036) [Link]
So they ship with support for ffmpeg but without compiling H.264 into it? It
would make it easier for individuals to sneak around the patent restrictions but that's exactly the sort of thing Mozilla don't want to enable. Yes they could do this, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to do it. It doesn't result in them shipping an H.264 enabled product though.
Well I can hardly predict the outcome of any potential legal action against
If Mozilla is offering me redistribution rights to an H.264 decoder as part of a
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 18:44 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Mozilla could either ship an FFmpeg version adapted to their fears or none at all, whatever they wish.
Mozilla is not giving you redistribution rights to FFmpeg. They cannot because they are not the authors. The FFmpeg project does it. No contract with the MPEG-LA is required to do this, much less some sort of non-standard one.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:16 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] You can of course use FFmpeg and pay the MPEG-LA if you are so inclined. There are companies that do it. The MPEG-LA could not care less which implementation is used. So that's the argument, is it? Just pay up? There are people who redistribute Mozilla software, you know, and the whole business has significant implications for Free Software implementations of Web technologies. And let us not forget all the companies who would rather have various MPEG-related technologies embedded in Web standards instead of ones which are ostensibly unencumbered. Mozilla could use a system FFmpeg just like Chrome does. No patent liabilities would be incurred on Mozilla. Which brings us back to the patent licensing controversy where Google's licence covers Google, naturally, and Google's "evangelists" insist that they're not violating the licensing terms of FFmpeg even according to the spirit of those terms.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 18:34 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > You can of course use FFmpeg and pay the MPEG-LA if you are so
> > inclined. There are companies that do it. The MPEG-LA could not > > care less which implementation is used.
> So that's the argument, is it? Just pay up?
I never said anything of the sort. I just had to counter the nonsense claim that Fluendo codecs are in any way more "legal" than those from FFmpeg. Those from FFmpeg are fast free software, Fluendo gives you slow proprietary software. If, for whatever weird reason, company X feels the need to pay the MPEG-LA, they have the liberty to do the wrong thing.
> There are people who redistribute Mozilla software, you know, and the
Spare me the condescending tone please.
There are people who have been writing and distributing multimedia software for more than the last decade. We never had any sort of problem to speak of. Much less than in the area of word processors or web browsers, which nobody is afraid to distribute.
> > Mozilla could use a system FFmpeg just like Chrome does. No patent
> Which brings us back to the patent licensing controversy where Google's
Google is violating neither the letter nor the spirit of FFmpeg's license. What gives you such weird ideas?
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 27, 2010 15:02 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] So that's the argument, is it? Just pay up?I never said anything of the sort. I just had to counter the nonsense claim that Fluendo codecs are in any way more "legal" than those from FFmpeg. If you want implementations of the MPEG cartel's technologies in Mozilla software, then you more or less have to advocate that the Mozilla organisation pays up: they aren't going to get away with distributing the software as a US-based organisation without doing so. The alternative is that Mozilla doesn't incorporate such technologies. Yes, it is a disgrace that people can use patents to paint legitimately distributed software as not being "legal" and to undermine the licensing terms of Free Software. The ways to get around this include campaigning for an end to software patents and avoidance of encumbered technologies until the former objective is achieved. There are people who redistribute Mozilla software, you know, and the whole business has significant implications for Free Software implementations of Web technologies.Spare me the condescending tone please. Well, it is about redistribution. High-profile distributors given the choice of either being pursued by an aggressive patent cartel or not distributing an application, all because encumbered technology was embedded in a Free Software application, will not choose the former option regardless of any insistence that the licensing fees are optional. Google is violating neither the letter nor the spirit of FFmpeg's license. What gives you such weird ideas? Oh, just some weird Web site called LWN.net...
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 10:44 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > > So that's the argument, is it? Just pay up?
> > I never said anything of the sort. I just had to counter the nonsense
> If you want implementations of the MPEG cartel's technologies in Mozilla
Why? Because you say so even though the MPEG-LA licensing terms disagree?
> Yes, it is a disgrace that people can use patents to paint legitimately
Avoidance is not viable when everything except "Hello World!" is patented, which is the situation we are in now...
> > > There are people who redistribute Mozilla software, you know, and
> > Spare me the condescending tone please.
> Well, it is about redistribution. High-profile distributors given the
VLC, MPlayer and FFmpeg are not high-profile distributors? It seems that
> > Google is violating neither the letter nor the spirit of FFmpeg's
> Oh, just some weird Web site called LWN.net...
A patent license from the MPEG-LA does not in any way interact with the LGPL. How would it? If Google has an MPEG-LA license and passes along FFmpeg to you it can only do so under the full terms of the LGPL. And this is what Google is doing: Distributing FFmpeg with all the rights that we passed along to them attached, as specified by the LGPL.
Anything else is impossible. The LGPL clearly states that if obligation X keeps you from distributing without passing along all rights, you may not distribute at all.
Even if they wanted to, neither Google nor the MPEG-LA can restrict the rights we granted you under the LGPL. FFmpeg is LGPLed, period. Not even a decree from the pope himself can change that. If somebody passes along FFmpeg to you, it happens under the terms of the LGPL.
Google can make any side deals they want. If those side deals prevent them from distributing according to the terms of the LGPL, then Google has a problem, but nobody else. Nobody else made a side deal. It doesn't matter if you get your FFmpeg from us directly or from Google. You are not a party to any sort of side deal, thus you are not affected by such side deals.
Note that this is how both FFmpeg and the Software Freedom Law Center see the issue. I never felt there was anything to clarify there, but apparently people are willing to take random quotes from random people as facts just because they are reprinted at lwn.net...
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 12:36 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] Why? Because you say so even though the MPEG-LA licensing terms disagree? From the location mentioned previously, I can find a summary of the terms - the real terms being sent out only on request, it would seem - which clearly impose restrictions on the purposes for which encoder/decoder products can be used. So, in fact, even if someone does obtain a licence from the cartel, it isn't clear whether that licence covers the whole spectrum of distribution given that Free Software doesn't distinguish between "personal consumer use" and "providers". Avoidance is not viable when everything except "Hello World!" is patented, which is the situation we are in now... It's true that patent claims are ubiquitous, but when the choice is to proliferate known patent-encumbered technologies licensed by an active enforcement organisation, or to seek to use other technologies that are not known to be encumbered and are more easily defended, the responsible path is the latter not the former. VLC, MPlayer and FFmpeg are not high-profile distributors? It seems that Then we shall have to switch to low-profile distributors for our free software then. As others have pointed out, the lack of interest in pursuing these projects is no guarantee that they will not be pursued in the future. And not only does the organisation producing a Web browser with 30% or so market share have to worry about this, but they also have to worry about the effects on those who redistribute their software under the much more high-profile brand that they maintain. A set-top box manufacturer selling products based directly on FFmpeg would need to be sniffed out by the cartel's enforcement department, but one selling products with Firefox branding would be very visible indeed. A patent license from the MPEG-LA does not in any way interact with the LGPL. How would it? If Google has an MPEG-LA license and passes along FFmpeg to you it can only do so under the full terms of the LGPL. And this is what Google is doing: Distributing FFmpeg with all the rights that we passed along to them attached, as specified by the LGPL. Such a patent licence cannot interact with the LGPL for redistribution to be permissible under those terms. But given what I've read about segmenting the recipients of the software (from the summary, above), it's quite possible that Google claim that Chrome is for "personal consumer use" whilst anyone else who repackages Chrome (as Chromium, for example) is not their responsibility. Thus, the latter group are burdened with dealing with the cartel when they seek to distribute, rather than use, the software, particularly if it turns out that the software is intended for "personal computer use" or for "providers". You can claim that the patent licence is merely some kind of "insurance". No-one is being forced to buy such insurance, but in practical terms a set of extra obligations are being added to certain recipients of the software. Whether people manage to sneak around section 11 of LGPLv2.1 or not on this basis - and I am reminded of the whole Microsoft/Novell covenant scheme - the lasting impression is that various principles of Free Software have been undermined. Note that this is how both FFmpeg and the Software Freedom Law Center see the issue. I never felt there was anything to clarify there, but apparently people are willing to take random quotes from random people as facts just because they are reprinted at lwn.net... Some more "random quotes" for you here. Of course, you can claim that it's merely a case of sour grapes that the GStreamer people are publishing advice from the FSF that conveniently supports their position. Again, we can probably only take Google's word for it that their agreement with the cartel is compatible, but as I note above, even if our trust is well-placed - that Google have not technically done "evil" - the consequences may not be so benign.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 15:21 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> So, in fact, even if someone does obtain a licence from the cartel, it
> isn't clear whether that licence covers the whole spectrum of > distribution given that Free Software doesn't distinguish between > "personal consumer use" and "providers".
And why should we care in the least? If such issues exist, they are between the MPEG-LA and its licensee. None of it affects the general public.
> > VLC, MPlayer and FFmpeg are not high-profile distributors? It seems
> As others have pointed out, the lack of interest in pursuing these
You seem to think that FFmpeg is some sort of fringe software product. The opposite is the case. YouTube uses it, Facebook uses it, it is used in Hollywood postproduction, it is the basis of VLC and most free and a lot of the proprietary transcoding solutions. So it touches most multimedia files that are consumed nowadays at some point of their existence. FFmpeg or VLC are not escaping the attention of the MPEG-LA due to living in some sort of small niche. There are many companies that use FFmpeg and are MPEG-LA licensees at the same time.
> A set-top box manufacturer selling products based directly on FFmpeg
Trust me, it's not hard to find out whether some program or set-top box uses FFmpeg. It's much easier to verify it uses MPEG-LA technology of some sort. Just perusing the feature list should be enough.
> > A patent license from the MPEG-LA does not in any way interact with
> Such a patent licence cannot interact with the LGPL for redistribution
So? Such are the sad facts of life. They may also have to deal with the cartel if they get FFmpeg directly from us.
> You can claim that the patent licence is merely some kind of
I think the main confusion stems from not differentiating between patent licensors and patent licensees. Google is just a licensee. A patent license is not theirs to hand out.
There are indeed free software licenses that have provisions about allowing to use your *own* patents as related to a specific piece of software. However, the LGPL v2.1 is not one of them and Google is not an MPEG-LA licensor.
> > Note that this is how both FFmpeg and the Software Freedom Law Center
> Some more "random quotes" for you here. Of course, you can claim that
This is completely in line with what I am saying. Where do you see anything that does not support my position?
The LGPL forbids extra restrictions, but Google is not placing any extra restrictions on FFmpeg. They are distributing exactly as required by the LGPL. Please point out the exact infringing action and the section of the LGPL it violates.
> Again, we can probably only take Google's word for it that their
Again, what do we care if Google is complying with their MPEG-LA contract? It's entirely between them to resolve any issues they might have.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 17:27 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] I think the main confusion stems from not differentiating between patent licensors and patent licensees. Google is just a licensee. A patent license is not theirs to hand out. Yes, but the "obligations" I mentioned are administered by a third party. Google acknowledges such obligations by obtaining a patent licence - you or I may refuse to do so - and it is this acknowledgement which acts as an admission that recipients of the very code they distribute may also have to obtain a patent licence. This undermines Free Software precisely because it opens the affected works up to potentially limitless claims from anyone who feels that their "intellectual property" is being infringed, and the copyright licence is then no longer the ultimate arbiter of the rights or privileges it describes. I would have a hard time obtaining a patent licence grant only for myself and then distributing Free Software affected by such a grant to others, but I guess my own standards of behaviour are different from those of others. This is completely in line with what I am saying. Where do you see anything that does not support my position? Right at the very end: If you take a license which doesn't allow others to distribute original or modified versions of libmad practicing the same patent claims as the version you distribute, then you may not distribute at all. Although this refers to the GPL, the same language supporting this conclusion appears in the LGPL.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 20:13 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > I think the main confusion stems from not differentiating between
> > patent licensors and patent licensees. Google is just a licensee. > > A patent license is not theirs to hand out.
> Yes, but the "obligations" I mentioned are administered by a third
There is nothing that requires admission. Do you think we can play pretend and say that the file libavcodec/h264.c in FFmpeg implements "Hello World!" or that a transcoding tool by the filename "ffmpeg" cannot in fact convert from one MPEG format to the other? You cannot solve problems by shutting up and there are no sleeping dogs to wake here.
I have said it multiple times already, let me repeat it: FFmpeg is not a secret in the industry and not a secret to the MPEG LA.
> > This is completely in line with what I am saying. Where do you see
> Right at the very end:
> "If you take a license which doesn't allow others to distribute original
Again: no problem for us. Apparently Google is not bound by such an agreement. And if they are, it's their problem. Or the MPEG LA's problem depending on your point of view.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 29, 2010 12:07 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] You cut this out in your reply which makes my point clear: I would have a hard time obtaining a patent licence grant only for myself and then distributing Free Software affected by such a grant to others, but I guess my own standards of behaviour are different from those of others. In case it isn't obvious to you, I'm putting myself in Google's position here. Again: no problem for us. Apparently Google is not bound by such an agreement. And if they are, it's their problem. The fact that this is Google's problem was my point four messages ago when I wrote: Which brings us back to the patent licensing controversy where Google's licence covers Google, naturally, and Google's "evangelists" insist that they're not violating the licensing terms of FFmpeg even according to the spirit of those terms. By "the spirit of those terms" take a look at the first quote above. And if the FSF's legal opinion were to stand on this matter, one would have to reassess Google's position beyond the mere spirit of those terms. Naturally, the participants in the FFmpeg project, which I presume includes yourself, may not need to worry about being served with an injunction. After all, why would the cartel want to prevent the proliferation of software which is, according to them, subject to their licensing programme? It's a nice way of generating business. Getting such technologies into an open standard is a bonus for the cartel (and a danger for everyone else), once everyone has convinced themselves that there's no risk in providing them to others (where "risk" includes unforeseen budget items related to patent licences that one was assured were not necessary), which was the caution given in the referenced article. It's distasteful to burden Free Software with such liabilities (see first quote, above, again) even if one's advice to people amounts to "it's cool" and "don't worry about it" (selective enforcement of patents is noted in the referenced article, by the way), but to burden open standards with them - noting the background of lobbying that goes on for "non-discriminatory licensing" in open standards (by patent holders) that would open the door for such inclusion - would push the boundaries of tastelessness still further. This is all covered adequately by the referenced article, of course.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 31, 2010 10:07 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> You cut this out in your reply which makes my point clear:
> > I would have a hard time obtaining a patent licence grant only for
> In case it isn't obvious to you, I'm putting myself in Google's position
So you want them to get a patent license valid for every person on earth? That basically means buying out all those patents. Do you think such a thing would be available at all? At a price Google would be willing and able to pay?
The alternative would be for Google to not get a patent license and exclude itself from using multimedia technologies. That's not an option. And please don't start the Theora fairy tales again, it's not an alternative.
> Which brings us back to the patent licensing controversy where Google's
>By "the spirit of those terms" take a look at the first quote above. And
What do you call the "FSF's legal opinion" on the matter? I know for sure that Eben Moglen agrees with us (FFmpeg) that patent side deals do not have any bearing at all on LGPLv2.1-licensed code, such as FFmpeg. The Software Freedom Law Center works for FFmpeg, BTW.
> Naturally, the participants in the FFmpeg project, which I presume
Correct. My name is Diego Biurrun and I work on FFmpeg.
> may not need to worry about being served with an injunction. After all,
Your bitterness does FFmpeg a disservice. We're a big part of the free software computing stack, thus making Desktop Linux viable. In this day and age, computing without multimedia support is unthinkable.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Feb 4, 2010 13:16 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] So you want them to get a patent license valid for every person on earth? That basically means buying out all those patents. Do you think such a thing would be available at all? At a price Google would be willing and able to pay? It doesn't mean buying those patents at all, but merely licensing them, which I'm sure has happened on a large scale before. But if Google's licence means that only they are practising the associated patent claims when distributing the code, and that recipients are not able to do so without a trip via the cartel's toll booth, then I think this contradicts the advice given by the FSF. Sure, you can claim that people aren't obliged to pay up to the cartel, but that's like claiming people don't have to pay their road tax or their television licence. What do you call the "FSF's legal opinion" on the matter? Well, I referenced the advice given by the FSF to the GStreamer project above and in a previous comment. If that's not their legal opinion then maybe you ought to tell the GStreamer people. Your bitterness does FFmpeg a disservice. We're a big part of the free software computing stack, thus making Desktop Linux viable. In this day and age, computing without multimedia support is unthinkable. I'm not bitter about FFmpeg, although to claim such a thing makes for a great distraction from the points being made in the original article(s). I'm merely pointing out that there are valid reasons for considering other multimedia technologies that don't appear on the MPEG cartel's pricing menu. (And really, I don't have that much to say about Theora, so maybe you're grouping me together with a bunch of other people. Now something like Dirac is interesting because it's definitely a "professional" format and one whose patent infringement status has been thoroughly investigated by an organisation who should be able to comment on such matters with some certainty. I'm sure that some people might like to brush such formats aside and insist that everyone should get with the MPEG programme - in which case I'd really have suspicions about those people if their arguments were not limited to "it's what people on Windows expect".)
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Feb 5, 2010 10:53 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Sure, you can claim that people aren't obliged to pay up to the cartel, but that's like claiming people don't have to pay their road tax or their television licence.
This is a good comparison in fact. Nobody would think about banning cars and television worldwide just because in some parts of the world you have to pay a tax to use them.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Feb 5, 2010 14:18 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] Sure, you can claim that people aren't obliged to pay up to the cartel, but that's like claiming people don't have to pay their road tax or their television licence.This is a good comparison in fact. Nobody would think about banning cars and television worldwide just because in some parts of the world you have to pay a tax to use them. Right, but I'm not advocating a "ban". I'm saying that by introducing a de-facto standard based on known-encumbered technologies, Google and friends are setting people up for such taxation. And I think that there are those of us that grudgingly accept things like genuine taxes and regulations because there is some kind of pretense of accountability and common sense behind their imposition. So, although some Free Software project may let you, for example, operate some kind of radio station, one has to grudgingly accept that for various reasons, there may be other restrictions from place to place that curtails the practical exercise of the freedoms/rights/privileges described in the software licence. Where patents are concerned, however, there are those of us who do not consider them to be legitimate, not least because the system that upholds patents is not accountable - it's practically set up to enrich itself as its primary objective. Now, when such instruments collide with Free Software licensing, I would certainly wish to disregard them entirely and insist that they impose no limitations on the freedoms/rights/privileges described in the software licence. However, in practice, patents are used to undermine the usage and distribution of Free Software. By licensing the MPEG patents for themselves (contrary to advice which apparently casts this strategy in a dubious light), Google acknowledges an obligation which resides beyond the software licence; through their market position, they proliferate this obligation, and then "to compete with Windows" or "to provide a proper experience" everyone becomes exposed to this obligation; since this obligation may impose unreasonable burdens on some parties (it may not be affordable for them to license the patents, for example, or maybe the cartel tells someone that they live in a "bad" country), it thereby excludes people from exchanging Free Software, thus dividing the community between the rich (with the privilege of using and distributing Free Software) and everyone else. Google's actions are more like a strong dose of car advocacy, or even an act to mandate car ownership, when having a car at the very least probably doesn't make sense for many people, and it might even be an unwanted financial burden for others. All I and others are trying to do is to encourage more sustainable alternatives.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:22 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
If Mozilla used the same method as Chrome no mainstream distribution would
be able to include it at all. Using ffmpeg directly is not a option for them.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:35 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
This is complete nonsense. By my last count all mainstream distributions except for Fedora distribute H.264 decoders.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 17:47 UTC (Tue) by __alex (subscriber, #38036) [Link]
Debian and Ubuntu don't.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 18:36 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
This is false, please make your homework before spouting nonsense. Both Ubuntu and Debian ship FFmpeg with H.264 decoding capabilities enabled.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 18:54 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Is it enabled out of the box or some non supported repository? There is a
big difference You seem to have left out SUSE as well
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 20:43 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Is it enabled out of the box or some non supported repository?
> There is a big difference.
It is enabled out of the box.
> You seem to have left out SUSE as well
openSUSE does not include FFmpeg and lists it on
http://en.opensuse.org/Application_black_list
but they appear to ship VLC. At least
http://software.opensuse.org/search
reveals VLC packages hosted on opensuse.org. No idea what those packages contain and how they are configured. If somebody can enlighten us, I'm all ears.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 20:52 UTC (Tue) by __alex (subscriber, #38036) [Link]
My apologies you are right. Debian merely disables the H.264 encoder not the
decoder.
http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-
>Currently the following video encoders are disabled in the ffmpeg package:
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 21:24 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> My apologies you are right. Debian merely disables the H.264
> encoder not the decoder.
BTW, this is completely irrational. The MPEG-LA charges the same amount for encoders as it does for decoders.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 27, 2010 0:54 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Debian's policy is to ignore patents until there is evidence that patent holders are forcing people to pay up.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 21:32 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
I guess they're not important enough to be sued by MPEG-LA.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 21:50 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
As is Mozilla.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 22:03 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
We probably have ten times as many users as Ubuntu and Debian. That's not a bet we would be comfortable taking.
Plus, living at the ongoing mercy of the MPEG-LA just isn't a good idea. Blizzard's latest blog post recaps the efforts of patent holders to squeeze out the last drop of royalties out media patents near the end of their life:
And aside from all that, there are huge licensing problems for content providers that don't go away even if we think we're somehow immune.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 22:16 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
VLC has many users as well (and they include FFmpeg), nobody ever bothered them. You should read the MPEG-LA licensing terms. They only talk of fees per unit *sold*. Mozilla does not sell Firefox. Neither does FFmpeg sell H.264 decoders. There is no problem for either of us.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 27, 2010 1:28 UTC (Wed) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
I don't know why MPEG-LA hasn't sued VLC, but selective enforcement is dangerous precisely because it's opaque and unpredictable. And Firefox still has a lot more users, more usage, and a much higher profile than VLC.
It's highly questionable that the MPEG-LA considers Mozilla to already have a patent license just because we don't "sell" Firefox. You don't get a license just by meeting the terms, you have to explicitly enter into an agreement. So I suggest you prove your point by obtaining a free license from the MPEG-LA to distribute a large number of units of a product with a price of zero. Let me know when you've got that.
Beyond that, what if someone sells a product that includes Firefox? What if the MPEG-LA revises their license terms? What if the corporations that run the MPEG-LA just decide they don't like us? You'd have us bet everything on the long-term goodwill of the MPEG-LA. That would be extremely foolish.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 27, 2010 11:58 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> And Firefox still has a lot more users, more usage, and a much higher
> profile than VLC.
Yes, but the MPEG-LA knows about VLC and FFmpeg and they have never moved a finger. Why would they? To skim off all the money we have made so far, i.e. nothing, and get lots of bad press in return?
> It's highly questionable that the MPEG-LA considers Mozilla to already
Go look at the terms. You don't need a license from the MPEG-LA (and neither does FFmpeg) because you don't qualify for requiring one:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Agreement.aspx
> Beyond that, what if someone sells a product that includes Firefox?
Then they have a problem to deal with depending on who they are, how much money they have and in which country they reside? But why does that concern you? Software patents on multimedia technology are in no way special. You did not stop shipping plugin support in Firefox when Microsoft got sued. There is a multitude of other software patents that apply to Mozilla software. Why is this case in any way special?
> What if the MPEG-LA revises their license terms?
The new licensing terms should come out any moment now since they were slated to be replaced in January. I'm just as curious as you are.
> What if the corporations that run the MPEG-LA just decide they don't
They sue you and get no money out of you. Then you have to stop US downloads for Firefox or offer a crippled version instead. Their loss. However, it will make the software patent nonsense newsworthy and fuel the discussion.
What exactly are you afraid of? I was never afraid that somebody might make me pay a billion bucks. I never had them and never will. So what exactly is it that you are fearing?
I can imagine hilarious scenarios of course: airport controls for software patent contraband :-)
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 27, 2010 23:55 UTC (Wed) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
> Yes, but the MPEG-LA knows about VLC and FFmpeg and they have never moved
> a finger. Why would they?
OK, VLC and FFmpeg are not interesting because they have no money. But as soon as anyone with money wants to distribute VLC or FFmpeg, then they could be a target.
> Go look at the terms. You don't need a license from the MPEG-LA (and
I don't see anything in there which says we wouldn't require one. Can you quote specific text that implies certain distributors of codecs don't require a license?
Typically when a patent holder makes a patent available royalty-free they don't say that "you don't require a license" ... that doesn't make much sense, since it's axiomatic that everyone who infringes a patent "requires a license". Instead they make a blanket grant of a free license to everyone, or grant something equivalent like a covenant to not sue. For example, see
> You did not stop shipping plugin support in Firefox when Microsoft got
Patents that are essential for implementing a Web standard (as the MPEG-LA patents threaten to be), are much more of a problem than patents like the Eolas patent that can be worked around or avoided in particular browser implementations.
Also, "stop shipping plugin support" was never been an option since it would not leave us with a viable browser. And yes, if shipping an H.264 codec is ever a necessity for being a viable browser, we'll try to find a way to ship one somehow. Compromise is better than irrelevance.
> They sue you and get no money out of you.
They'd get money. http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2009/11/19/state-of-mozill...
> Then you have to stop US
We'd be out millions of dollars and back where we started ... actually, even worse, since we would have to return to our free-codec efforts having lost time and credibility.
And remember, this entire discussion ignores the issues for content providers. Even if H.264 decoding was entirely unencumbered, having to pay MPEG-LA taxes to publish video on the Web is unacceptable.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 12:55 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > Yes, but the MPEG-LA knows about VLC and FFmpeg and they have never
> > moved a finger. Why would they?
> OK, VLC and FFmpeg are not interesting because they have no money. But
I think the fundamental problem is that you are the sort of person that wants insurance policies and buys them, while I am not.
> > Go look at the terms. You don't need a license from the MPEG-LA (and
> I don't see anything in there which says we wouldn't require one. Can
There is nothing in there which says you require one.
Scenarios for which you require a license are listed and they do not apply to you, isn't that enough?
> > Then you have to stop US downloads for Firefox or offer a crippled
> We'd be out millions of dollars and back where we started ... actually,
There are two points I think you are not assessing correctly:
1) H.264 video + AAC audio + MP4 container as industry standard
Multimedia used to be completely fragmented with a multitude of competing and incompatible standards fighting for market share. Now we have a standard for lossy video and audio and it is being adopted across the board. It is not just used for web video, it is used on Bluray disks, it is used in cinemas and in Hollywood production, it is used by the ripping scene, it is used by video sharing sitesa already.
All these places now have the encoding infrastructure in place and no interest in changing or exchanging it.
2) viable alternatives
Let's face it, Vorbis is an excellent audio codec, but Theora is not a state of the art video codec and Ogg is a horrible container. Theora still has room for improvement of course, but it will never close the gap to more modern video codecs. Comparatively little effort is being spent on it and it must fight with one hand behind its back due to avoiding anything that might be patented. Even without such a handicap Theora will never be able to match the quality standards of more modern video codecs.
Keep in mind that web video is not YouTube and the unspeakable quality it offers nowadays. Think a few years into the future and web video will all be high-definition content.
> And remember, this entire discussion ignores the issues for content
This reminds me of something: Mozilla made a study about possible submarine patents on Theora. What did you find? Why was the study never published? If you found nothing, there surely wouldn't be a reason to keep mum about it, don't you agree?
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 20:29 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
> I think the fundamental problem is that you are the sort of person that
> wants insurance policies and buys them, while I am not.
Maybe that is because we have built up a large organization that serves hundreds of millions of users, and you have not. Or maybe it's because we're used to seeing and fighting threats to the open Web.
> Scenarios for which you require a license are listed and they do not
No. The document lists scenarios for which a license is offered and is silent about other scenarios. More about this in the other part of the thread.
> There are two points I think you are not assessing correctly:
How great H.264 is is not the issue here. The licensing is the problem.
> This reminds me of something: Mozilla made a study about possible
For reasons I honestly don't understand, our lawyers tell us not to talk about it. All I can do is point to our actions in distributing Theora.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 31, 2010 11:37 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > I think the fundamental problem is that you are the sort of person
> > that wants insurance policies and buys them, while I am not.
> Maybe that is because we have built up a large organization that serves
Oh, VLC alone has over a hundred million downloads, add to that all other multimedia software based on FFmpeg. Then think of YouTube and Facebook, which are probably the largest users of FFmpeg and how many users they have.
FFmpeg is less visible than Firefox, but by no means do I believe it has less users. I'll turn your argument around:
If tomorrow all copies of Firefox deleted themselves, most people will curse and fire up the alternative browsers that are likely already installed on their machines.
If tomorrow all copies of the FFmpeg libraries delete themselves, a lot of things will stop working where no viable replacement is available or only available for a considerable amount of money.
Free software multimedia will be reduced to dealing with the <5% of fringe content for which alternative libraries exist. Large content providers will have to reengineer their backend infrastructure.
> Or maybe it's because we're used to seeing
Maybe we act the way we do because we have been treading the patent-filled lands of multimedia for a decade or more. You are the newbies here, not us.
> > There are two points I think you are not assessing correctly:
> How great H.264 is is not the issue here. The licensing is the problem.
I'm not particularly fond of H.264 myself. It's far too complex a standard and the quality to decoding complexity tradeoff is forcing me to upgrade my vintage hardware.
However, we finally have an open standard for lossy video encoding. This is great news in the world of multimedia.
> > This reminds me of something: Mozilla made a study about possible
> For reasons I honestly don't understand, our lawyers tell us not to talk
This confirms the rumors that there are submarines lurking in the Theora ocean. Nothing else can explain your actions and why Nokia (who supposedly holds patents that Theora infringes) is afraid of touching Theora.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Feb 1, 2010 14:29 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>1) H.264 video + AAC audio + MP4 container as industry standard
Just to take this discussion further off track:
I think it's interesting to look at the technologies used as standard by pirate groups. Since they are already infringing copyrights, these people tend to have very little interest in any legal or philosophical issues attached to any particular technology, and gravitate towards the technically superior solution.
For HD, pirated video is almost exclusively H264, plus AAC or Vorbis (no clear winner here), in a Matroska container. For whatever reason, nobody seems willing to use MP4 unless they have to for compatibility with hardware (and perhaps software) produced by companies with a vested interest in that container.
Not especially relevant, but I found it interesting...
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 8:15 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> > What if the corporations that run the MPEG-LA just decide they don't
> > like us? You'd have us bet everything on the long-term goodwill of > > the MPEG-LA. That would be extremely foolish.
> They sue you and get no money out of you. Then you have to stop US
Mozilla made $78 million in revenue in fiscal 2008. That's not "no money." They don't want to encourage users to adopt a patented codec that will end up costing them. Can you really blame them?
Anyway, IE still has a huge honking market share and probably won't implement any kind of HTML5 video. I wonder if someone will write a plugin to do it. I'm not familiar with how the plugin architecture works so I don't even know if such a plugin would be feasible.
> I can imagine hilarious scenarios of course: airport controls for software
I can imagine some kind of futuristic tablet computing device where installing unauthorized software was impossible. All software would have to be approved by some centralized authority, who would be an easy target for patent litigation. In that case, distributing free software that used patented codecs could easily become impossible.
Of course, that could never happen. Pure science fiction :)
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 28, 2010 10:52 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> I can imagine hilarious scenarios of course: airport controls for software
> patent contraband :-)
> I can imagine some kind of futuristic tablet computing device where
Apple ships an H.264 decoder with that device already, patent license and all. So no problem from that side...
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 26, 2010 21:33 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Chrome doesn't use a system FFmpeg. They ship their own FFmpeg, which Google has paid MPEG-LA to obtain a license for.
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties Posted Jan 31, 2010 11:46 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I'll have to note here that Google likely had an MPEG LA license anyway, same as all the other big players. Since they calculate with the cost of that license to operate, browser or not, no extra costs are incurred if they ship H.264 support. That's one of the reasons why MPEG LA patent licenses do not make them break a sweat.
|
|||||||||||||