| |||||||||||||
gstreamer decodersgstreamer decodersPosted Jan 26, 2010 22:10 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141)In reply to: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web by Trelane Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
> If you want to write an h.264 deocder, then, you can do so and write
> it for the gstreamer backend.
gstreamer already uses FFmpeg to decode almost everything.
(Log in to post comments)
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 26, 2010 22:12 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
So? Using GStreamer != using FFMPeg.
You may use FFMPeg in the GStreamer system, but it's hardly synonymous.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 26, 2010 22:46 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I just wanted to clarify that gstreamer uses FFmpeg to decode most videos already and that there is no point in writing an H.264 decoder for gstreamer since such a thing already exists and is in widespread use. People are constantly confused about this.
Fluendo also offers an alternative H.264 decoder that hooks into gstreamer. In exchange for money they take away your freedom. It's tasteless.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 26, 2010 22:54 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"there is no point in writing an H.264 decoder for gstreamer since such a thing already exists and is in widespread use"
Unless you need a patent license, in which case you're going to want to use Fluendo's codec.
"Fluendo also offers an alternative H.264 decoder that hooks into gstreamer. In exchange for money they take away your freedom."
Umm, jein. Unlike FFmpeg, they *have* a patent license. So, you know, you don't get sued. With software patents, you're screwed either way. Pretty sure Fluendo *can't* ship a Free codec; it's almost certainly in the MPEG-LA license terms. I've asked the MPEG-LA to clarify their position towards Free and open source codecs for their FAQ; we'll see if anything comes of it. So, really, either way your freedom is gone.
Shipping known-patented code without a license is tasteless IMHO. Same as selling your friend stolen goods.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 27, 2010 11:36 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > there is no point in writing an H.264 decoder for gstreamer since such
> > a thing already exists and is in widespread use
> Unless you need a patent license, in which case you're going to want to
See below for details about patent licenses..
Note that Fluendo contacted us (FFmpeg) some time ago to negotiate a patent exception for FFmpeg's H.264 decoder. The request was declined. I think they then licensed some proprietary H.264 decoder from somewhere. Writing one from scratch is an entirely nontrivial task.
What Fluendo offers you is common and garden-variety proprietary software. If this is compatible with your moral standards, fine. But presenting them as the champions of software freedoms is - IMNSHO - tasteless.
> > Fluendo also offers an alternative H.264 decoder that hooks into
> Umm, jein. Unlike FFmpeg, they *have* a patent license. So, you know,
What makes you think that? Please get a clue before making such broad and insulting claims. Patent licenses are completely orthogonal to software licenses and not tied to any software implementation. In fact, you can get them separately and there are companies that do exactly that. The two most prominent users of FFmpeg are YouTube and Facebook, both are MPEG-LA licensees. Also, why would the MPEG-LA care which software you run after they have received their money?
All the claims about a license being required in order to be "legally" allowed to use or even distribute H.264 decoding software are completely made up. Check the MPEG-LA licensing terms yourself:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Agreement.aspx
They only speak of selling products, not of using or distributing software.
I don't need a license from the MPEG-LA, neither does FFmpeg or VLC and neither do you or 99.9% of the world's population. The problem only exists for companies that deal in MPEG technologies, have deep enough pockets and reside in certain parts of the world where the legal system is antisocial. Now I'm very sorry that people find themselves in such a situation and I have personally fought against the problem spreading. But holding the rest of the world hostage to account for the situation of a chosen few is not helpful.
> I've asked the MPEG-LA to clarify their position towards Free and open
Send me an email if/when you see results. Or have our beloved editor in chief post it as a news story. It will surely be newsworthy.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 28, 2010 0:00 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
> All the claims about a license being required in order to be "legally"
> allowed to use or even distribute H.264 decoding software are completely > made up. Check the MPEG-LA licensing terms yourself: > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Agreement.aspx > They only speak of selling products, not of using or distributing software.
Ah, this seems to be the source of your confusion.
MPEG-LA can sue anyone who's practicing the claims of their patents who doesn't have a license. If they don't offer a license that covers your usage, that's too bad for you.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 28, 2010 11:10 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > All the claims about a license being required in order to be "legally"
> > allowed to use or even distribute H.264 decoding software are > > completely made up. Check the MPEG-LA licensing terms yourself: > > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Agreement.aspx > > They only speak of selling products, not of using or distributing > > software.
> Ah, this seems to be the source of your confusion.
I'm not confused about how patent licensing works.
> MPEG-LA can sue anyone who's practicing the claims of their patents who
Yes, they *can*, but they do not have to. Also, they can just flatly deny you a license. Patent licensing is not compulsory. I know all that.
But the MPEG-LA is a patent pool. It's designed to maximize revenue for the parties forming the patent pool and simplify the access to patents for licensees. Denying you a license is not in their best interest, nor is suing every single entity that distributes technology that may infringe on their patents.
> If they don't offer a license that covers your
We're going in circles here. Why are you so hell-bent on getting a license? The MPEG-LA states that licenses are only necessary in certain circumstances. When I point out that these circumstances don't apply to you, you sense impending doom instead of being happy...
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 28, 2010 20:49 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
> Denying you a license is not in their best interest, nor is suing every
> single entity that distributes technology that may infringe on their > patents.
Denying us a free license is certainly in their best interest. They could extract millions of dollars a year in revenue from us. Ditto for every other entity with significant income.
> The MPEG-LA states that licenses are only necessary in certain
I haven't found that stated anywhere. The MPEG-LA offers a license that covers certain circumstances. For all other circumstances, it is silent.
Maybe you're arguing that the MPEG-LA's silence about those other circumstances indicates that they don't care and would not choose to sue over those cases? That is extremely doubtful; it would be a most unwise business practice to forgo licensing for unforeseen product categories. And I already explained why relying on the beneficence of the MPEG-LA is not desirable.
My guess is that the MPEG-LA has simply not considered the possibility that an organization which could afford to pay significant licensing revenue would give away for free software that includes an H.264 codec.
Anyway, you can settle this. Go ahead and ask the MPEG-LA to declare that free distribution of FFmpeg does not require a patent license. If you get that in writing, that would be really interesting.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 28, 2010 22:56 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Dunno your email, so here's their response. First, my email:
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 5:51 PM To: QandA Subject: Free and Open Source implementations of MPEG-4 Visual? Hello. I read through the FAQ and can't find out if Free and Open Source developers and products need to license the MPEG-LA patents for MPEG-4 Visual. It was alleged (http://lwn.net/Articles/370985/) in a comment that royalties are only necessary for products sold, not for free products. Is this correct? Could you please comment on the licensing options for Free (e.g. GPL) and open source implementations of MPEG-4 Visual, specifically h.264? What about downstream users/developers/distributors of Free and open source software? I'll post your reply to the above comment list when I've received it. Thank you very much,
==========REPLY==========
By way of background, I would like to point out that the Licenses
Our MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License includes 29 patent owners
Under the Licenses, coverage is provided and rights are granted for (a)
In response to your specific question, under the Licenses royalties are
I would also like to mention that while our Licenses are not concluded
Therefore, we suggest that all End Users deal with products only from
Best regards,
Allen
Allen Harkness
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 28, 2010 23:04 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M4V/Pages/Licensees.a...
187. Fluendo S.A.
I don't see ffmpeg as a licensor.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 29, 2010 7:53 UTC (Fri) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Thanks a lot, Trelane. I hope that puts to rest Don Diego's argument that free software doesn't need to be licensed.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 29, 2010 14:45 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
And the definitions of "product chain", "end product", "end product supplier" and "End User" would probably need investigating before anyone thinks that Google has now licensed the patents from the cartel for everyone. Just to preempt any jubilation that H.264 is now "safe" for genuinely open standards, of course.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 30, 2010 2:38 UTC (Sat) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
I replied, with questions for clarification:
==========MY REPLY========== Allen,
Thank you for the information. I think I grok, but I do have two
From Allen Harkness on Thursday, 28 January, 2010:
What are these thresholds? Ideally, I'd like numbers, but information
>maximum annual royalty caps to provide more cost predictability for
How does this work in an open source or Free software setup, where
Two scenarios come to mind:
2) A corporation downloads one copy of Chrome from Google, and redistributes
3) Same scenarios as above, but for a home user distributing to others.
Thanks!
-Joseph
I've not received an answer to date. I'll post if they respond back.
Also, I'd like to take this moment to thank Fluendo for providing a licensed method. I hate software patents, particularly for what are otherwise open standards. Maybe we need patentleft to kick things off? It is, after all, another license in the end.
Finally, I'll also go ahead and say that all my videos that I have control over are Theora. :)
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 11:55 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Also, I'd like to take this moment to thank Fluendo for providing a
> licensed method.
A company is thanked for providing proprietary software. This must be a precedent on lwn.net. Anyway, you could have said that you don't care about free software right at the start. That would have saved us going back and forth about the finer points.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 13:21 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Given his earlier actions in poking MPEG LA with a stick, apparently in
the hope they'd wake up and say 'ffmpeg? what's that? stop, now!', I think his not caring about free software goes without saying. Or, rather, given a choice between free software and his being right, his being right would come first every time.
(apologies for sexist phrasing, but this particular odious characteristic
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 20:37 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"Given his earlier actions in poking MPEG LA with a stick, apparently in
the hope they'd wake up and say 'ffmpeg? what's that? stop, now!', I think his not caring about free software goes without saying."
It wasn't poking with a stick, your assumptions about my motivation are completely off the mark, and your conclusion based on the above is also completely wrong. Fortunately, I don't have to prove myself to random jerks on the Internet.
"Or, rather, given a choice between free software and his being right, his being right would come first every time."
Also incorrect. Not surprising. I think your own prejudices color your perceptions here.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 0:45 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, what was I supposed to think? If your supposition that ffmpeg had
been ignored by the MPEG LA because they were beneath their notice had proven correct, your own actions would have done nothing less than bring another patent attack on free software. Well done.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 1:09 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
That was never my supposition. Perhaps you are thinking of
" 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. "
All I did was ask for clarification on their FAQ. At worst, I hastened the inevitable by some unknowable quantity. At best, my email has helped show better where the licensing necessities are.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 1:14 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
ugh. my thinking with a screaming baby ain't the clearest. at best would have been a fairytale ending of "GPL implementation is OK with us!" at worst i've improved our (or just my) knowledge of the licensing situation at the cost of *perhaps* hastening the inevitable by some unknowable quantity.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 4, 2010 0:30 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Screaming baby explains everything, I think. Rationality is not expected
under those circumstances. (Sanity is hard enough to maintain.)
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 16:04 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
So you're a fan of security through obscurity nix? I'm surprised.
I don't see a downside to getting everything into the open. It might mean some short term difficulty for the ffmpeg project (difficulty that I'm sure they're expecting anyway), but it means long-term stability for everybody.
Nice work Trelane. You're doing this for all of us. Thanks!
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 16:36 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
It still wasn't my intent to get anyone in trouble. Let's be clear on that point. I was solely looking for information (and if they'd said "Oh, we never thought of that! GPL is a great license, and you totally can consider yourselves covered!" or something like that, that'd've been great. As it is, we now know a bit more about implementations they don't care about making pay (see the thresholds I asked to be clarified.) And we have it in writing (as much as email is; I do have logs too))
It's also the start of a dialog, if they choose to go there. I'd be willing to talk with them about Free Software and patents and direct them at more knowledgeable people. Let's try to keep this positive!
legal trouble Posted Feb 2, 2010 15:29 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
For some reason people keep expecting trouble for us and expecting that we expect trouble. We have had zero trouble in the 10 odd years of our existence and are firmly convinced that we will see the same amount of trouble in the next decade. See also
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 4, 2010 1:14 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The law and security have the same relationship to each other as theology
has to religion: that is, none to speak of.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 23:25 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Quit worrying about FFmpeg keeping a low profile. We're not a secret to any of the players in the industry and not to the MPEG LA.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 0:52 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Oh I'm not worrying. I entirely believe you: ffmpeg is too influential for
MPEG LA not to know about it. But *if* the supposition (bandied about by several here including IIRC Trelane) were true that ffmpeg had been ignored because it was too ignorable or not a revenue generator or something, then Trelane had just poked a dragon (or at least a troll) with a stick. This is generally considered a bad idea, even if it turns out that the dragon knows who you are and doesn't want to eat you today.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 19:45 UTC (Mon) by rawler (guest, #60308) [Link]
Personally, my guess would be that ffmpeg may be too influential. Banning
ffmpeg for patent-reasons would be pretty much poking not the bear, but the bee-hive of pissed of techno-geeks everywhere.
As the mail states, there are intentional exceptions for low-volume (in
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 14:38 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>(apologies for sexist phrasing, but this particular odious characteristic
>is in my experience restricted to males. Generally young ones.)
I think this kind of comment is highly out of place on LWN.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 4, 2010 1:12 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's from personal experience with myself. We were all young and stupid
once.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 20:41 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"Anyway, you could have said that you don't care about free software right at the start. That would have saved us going back and forth about the finer points."
Nice troll. You almost had me going there.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 23:23 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Thanks for the compliment, but I will have to insist:
If you thank Fluendo for providing you with "legally licensed" proprietary software, then you should build a throne for Google, which is providing you with "legally licensed" free software, don't you think?
Do you also thank Adobe for "legally licensed" Flash and Microsoft for "legally licensed" Windows 7? They all come with an MPEG LA license..
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 23:36 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
If they work for Linux, providing a Free stack for multimedia and multimedia streaming and DVR functionality, then yes. Yes, I do. Your "throne" exaggeration is a bit extreme, though. I thank Google for their work on Chrome, although whether their patent license extends to you if you build Chrome and ffmpeg is murky at best (see also Fluendo and their MP3 plugin proprietary vs BSD-licensed). That's why I asked MPEG-LA for more information.
I also buy Codeweavers Crossover Office because they help Wine to a great degree.
"Do you also thank Adobe for "legally licensed" Flash"
I thank them for having a Linux plugin. I don't like Flash over Free, patent-free standards, though. (See also the "I produce Theora content") I'm doing my part to keep us viable now (Fluendo and their plugin work) and in the future (Fluendo's Free software, Theora/Xiph, and my FSF membership).
and Microsoft for "legally licensed" Windows 7?"
If I ran Windows, I'd thank them for licensing the codec.
You do nobody any favors when your patent protection plan is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand, putting your fingers in your ears and saying "There ain't no patent threat" three times fast. You counter it by helping establish Free, patent-free standards and filling the gap until we get to that point.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 14:26 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Fluendo is not a free software company. They stopped significant contributions to gstreamer years ago. They are a common and garden-variety proprietary software shop now. Why you would thank them for offering products for sale to you is beyond me, but hey...
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 15:34 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"Fluendo is not a free software company. They stopped significant contributions to gstreamer years ago. They are a common and garden-variety proprietary software shop now."
From poking around in wikipedia and talking to GStreamer people, this isn't entirely accurate, although it's not entirely inaccurate either. My information was apparently out of date.
"Why you would thank them for offering products for sale to you is beyond me, but hey..."
Had you stopped prior to this sentence, this would have been a helpful and informative post. This sentence took that work and overshadowed it by jerkishness.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 2, 2010 15:41 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > "Fluendo is not a free software company. They stopped significant
> > contributions to gstreamer years ago. They are a common and > > garden-variety proprietary software shop now."
> From poking around in wikipedia and talking to GStreamer people, this
I got the information from Edward Hervey who works on gstreamer (and for Collabora, the company that funds gstreamer development nowadays) and hangs around in the #ffmpeg-devel IRC channel. Just look at the gstreamer commit graph of thomasvs, who works for Fluendo and commented in this discussion before:
http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/thomasvs
> > Why you would thank them for offering products for sale to you is
> Had you stopped prior to this sentence, this would have been a helpful
You're not exactly a role model either, but the remark was dead serious. I never felt like thanking a supermarket for offering me goods for sale. Why would you thank any company for offering you their goods?
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 2, 2010 16:35 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
I got my information from several sources on #gstreamer and #fluendo. (note also that their gstreamer contributions are only a portion of what they do, s.a. flumotion, their streaming and recording several FOSS events, etc.)
"Why would you thank any company for offering you their goods?"
If it was the only place or one of the few places to get it legally, I'd be pretty grateful for it. Perhaps that's what you're not comprehending. Maybe we're just different people and see things differently, eh?
Fluendo vs. FFmpeg Posted Feb 3, 2010 1:40 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Your continuous claim that FFmpeg is illegal is insulting. Your lack of appreciation for software freedom is sad.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 20:06 UTC (Mon) by rawler (guest, #60308) [Link]
> What are these thresholds? Ideally, I'd like numbers, but information
> on whether it's monetary or downloads is more than I have now. From http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_Ter...
"royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per legal entity are 0 - 100,000
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 2, 2010 2:08 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Awesome! Thanks for the info! Hooray for information with sources!
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 0:37 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
That's not my take on the issue, nor could it be since copyright and patent licenses are orthogonal.
What I'm saying is that only corporations with deep pockets in certain parts of the world need to worry at all. You seem convinced that you are such an entity. Very well, good luck with your HTML 5 efforts. I don't care what browser makes my life without Flash more bearable, but I'm certainly willing to switch browsers to enjoy the privilege.
Then again, I'm convinced that you will punt and use system infrastructure to decode video in the medium-term future. Hopefully you will manage without hurting your market share too much...
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 29, 2010 8:09 UTC (Fri) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
BTW the list of H.264 licensees is here:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 30, 2010 12:34 UTC (Sat) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
FFmpeg is not an MPEG LA licensee, nor will it be in the future.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 5:09 UTC (Sun) by luya (subscriber, #50741) [Link]
More reasons to switch to Theora. If only manufacturers of multimedia devices follow the suite. =/
End User use of H.264 Posted Jan 31, 2010 16:00 UTC (Sun) by jrincayc (guest, #29129) [Link]
I have wondered what would happen if an end user requests a H.264 license for their own use. Has anyone ever tried this?
End User use of H.264 Posted Feb 1, 2010 19:47 UTC (Mon) by jxself (guest, #63302) [Link]
jrincayc: Yes. They refused to license to me.
End User use of H.264 Posted Feb 3, 2010 8:38 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
What did you try?
End User use of H.264 Posted Mar 29, 2010 17:43 UTC (Mon) by jxself (guest, #63302) [Link]
I contacted MPEG-LA and asked for a license. They quickly sent me one (I asked for MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and H.264.) After the licenses arrived I signed and returned them. They later contacted me because I was an end-user and would not license to me. (Email copied below.)
I'm glad that I tried. If they're now saying that end users can be held responsible, I will keep these signed licenses (and the entire email chain) in my records. In the event that I am sued my plan is to pull these out and say, "look -- I tried to get licensed -- they refused" and go on about how it doesn't seem quite right to refuse to license to me while also suing me for not being licensed. Anyway, here's the relevant snippet from the email.
"Although our Licenses do not directly provide coverage for an end user and anyone in the product chain may be held responsible for an unlicensed product, a royalty paid for an end product by the end product supplier would render the product licensed in the hands of the end user. Therefore, the end user would not normally pay a royalty to MPEG LA for using such a product, but where a royalty has not been paid, such product is unlicensed.
In this case, as you appear to be the end user, we suggest that you choose a player from a licensed supplier. In that regard, we maintain lists of Licensees in Good Standing to each of our Licenses in the corresponding sections of our website http://www.mpegla.com.
Finally, please note that since you will not benefit from coverage under the Licenses, we will not execute the signed Licenses that you have returned to us."
End User use of H.264 Posted Feb 1, 2010 20:02 UTC (Mon) by rawler (guest, #60308) [Link]
Interesting idea. A single home-user would surely fall under the mentioned
"low volume threshold" of 100.000 units, so it would be interesting to see if there are any hidden fixed costs. Please post if you do decide to try it.
If nothing else, if someone wants to break the system, a suggestion on
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 4, 2010 23:36 UTC (Thu) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
> Our MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License includes 29 patent owners
> contributing more than 900 patents that are essential for use of the > MPEG-4 Visual (Part 2) Standard. Our AVC Patent Portfolio License > includes 25 patent owners contributing more than 1,000 patents that are > essential for use of AVC/H.264 Standard ("MPEG-4 Part 10").
My immediate question would be:
"Given that Microsoft and several other vendors have been hit for billions of dollars in patent infringements after they bought a license from MPEG-LA to use the MPEG-2 intellectual property, we will only buy a license from MPEG-LA if they guarantee that no intellectual property other than their own is infringed by the technology they're licensing, and they indemnify and promise to be liable for any lawsuit held against any company implementing the AVC/H.264 standard."
It's extremely hypocritical for MPEG LA and its members to cast aspersions on the possibility that Theora may be at risk of attack from submarine patents, and yet stand idly by while patent trolls attack companies that have licensed technology from MPEG LA. If you buy the license to implement the standard, you should be buying a license for <u>everything</u> that implements the standard. You shouldn't then be told "oh, sorry, you did it in this slightly different way, we don't cover that, hope you like paying lots of money to other patent trolls".
It just highlights the complete stupidity of trying to claim that ideas are property.
Microsoft MPEG-2 patent infringement lawsuit Posted Feb 5, 2010 9:01 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Where did you get that information about Microsoft being hit by MPEG-2 patent infringement suits? I haven't heard about such a lawsuit before.
Microsoft MPEG-2 patent infringement lawsuit Posted Feb 5, 2010 14:35 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
They may have been thinking of this:
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 28, 2010 11:30 UTC (Thu) by thomasvs (guest, #36955) [Link]
"Fluendo also offers an alternative H.264 decoder that hooks into gstreamer. In exchange for money they take away your freedom. It's tasteless."
Why do we take away your freedom? Feel free not to buy our codecs. No one is forcing you to give us money. I don't see how offering an option for those people that want a legal properly licensed codec takes away freedom. It's hollow rhetoric.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 28, 2010 12:46 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > Fluendo also offers an alternative H.264 decoder that hooks into
> > gstreamer. In exchange for money they take away your freedom. > > It's tasteless."
> Why do we take away your freedom? Feel free not to buy our codecs. No one
There you're doing it again. Insinuating that the only way to get a "legal properly licensed" codec is by forfeiting software freedom and giving you money. By corollary you're also saying that free software implementing those same codecs is somehow illegal and should be avoided in favor of your proprietary software. This is tasteless and insulting.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 11:10 UTC (Wed) by thomasvs (guest, #36955) [Link]
I don't like exagerated rhetoric. In no way am I saying FFmpeg is illegal. Our reading of the GPL and LGPL, which are licenses governing the distribution of software, you need to give the same rights to your recipients as you have, and they need to be able to redistribute with the same rights as well.
In our reading this conflicts with the combination of patents and their usage license when they are volume-based instead of one-time fee. If I distribute the code, I'm not going to pay the end user license for everyone that gets my software; I don't even know how you would be able to track that.
In the case of mp3, since there was a one-time fee, we did exactly that.
Of course, this reasoning a) assumes that patents and patent licensing are legally valid (which for example is the case in the US) and b) is our (and our lawyer's) interpretation of the situation.
Diego, feel free to disagree with this; in the end what we saw is a practical situation (no distro feels legally safe to ship ffmpeg/xine/vlc/mplayer).
But don't blow up the discussion with insinuations that we think ffmpeg is illegal, or that we try to take away anyone's freedom. That's just intentionally polarizing the discussion. Your arguments are stronger when you don't put words in the mouth of the other.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 13:37 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
If you are not restricted by the patent (e.g. never signed a deal with the
licensor, not subject court injunction), then you can distribute just fine without compromising the free software licence on the code. This is true regardless of whether or not the code is subject to patents, for you are in the same position as the recipient, which is all the GPL licence requires.
If you choose not to distribute a codec because you know it is patented, then
I think the above may be what Don Diego is trying to communicate, and it fits
If you come to an agreement with the patent holder, then obviously you
The next question, which I think you or others in the Mozilla camp (and
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 13:46 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Last sentence makes little sense. Basically I meant that the idea of resisting
patented tech does not rest on there being any immediate licensing problems with implementations of such software.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 18:13 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Patented software is indeed distributed all the time, just take Linux, Samba, Firefox as high-profile examples. Their license is not compromised by the fact that somebody somewhere claims some patent.
But you are not portraying my stance correctly, see my other posts for reference.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 21:29 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Yes, I see my mistake. I thought originally you were referring to FFmpeg and
other unlicensed practitioners of patents distributing potentially patented code.
Re the patent licence case, after digging relatively carefully through the GPL
"If you come to an agreement with the patent holder, then obviously you
It seems the *actual* obligations imposed by the GPL do not go that far.
I'm starting to think you're right.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 13:42 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Our reading of the GPL and LGPL, which are licenses governing the
> distribution of software, you need to give the same rights to your > recipients as you have, and they need to be able to redistribute with > the same rights as well.
False. You need to give recipients the same rights that you received when getting the software. You received FFmpeg as (L)GPL from us, you have to pass it along as (L)GPL again. The (L)GPL says nothing about a contract with the MPEG LA.
I'll give you another example: The original author has the right to publish the software under any license. This right is *not* passed along with GPL software. I could also sell you some FFmpeg code I wrote under a proprietary license. Then you have the right to use that code under said proprietary license, but you do *not* pass that right along when you redistribute FFmpeg. You have the right, but you need not pass it along, you are not even allowed to pass it along.
> in the end what we saw is a practical situation (no distro feels
FALSE !!!
Do you really believe what you were saying there? Just scroll up and read a bit of the discussion above or verify such statements before making them.
> But don't blow up the discussion with insinuations that we think
You profit from making people think that you are the only "legal" way to run multimedia software under Linux. Some people are easily scared and gullible and believe what you write. These people then run your proprietary software instead of free software to do the same job at least as good. These people are thus deprived from their software freedom and you have profited.
There is no way around these facts. If you were putting all the money you earn with that stuff into a big fund to sponsor free software or if you donated it, then fine, I would believe you. Or if there was a note in your shop that said "no private person has ever needed this, you can use free software X instead also". But you do no such thing.
Which is fine, be that way if you want, I would welcome you to act differently, but I do not condemn you. However, please be honest about what you do. You sell proprietary software like any other company and are in no way special.
> That's just intentionally polarizing the discussion. Your arguments
I have heard "FFmpeg is illegal.", "Playing DVDs under Linux is illegal.", "Someone will end up in jail." more times than I can count. Just try to spend a day at an FFmpeg/MPlayer booth for a day during LinuxTag or some other event.
This discussion is already polarized and lopsided in one direction. I intend to balance the scales a bit by countering the FUD and anticipatory obedience that has become the hallmark of parts of our community.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 14:38 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
> > Our reading of the GPL and LGPL, which are licenses governing the
> > distribution of software, you need to give the same rights to your > > recipients as you have, and they need to be able to redistribute with > > the same rights as well.
> False. You need to give recipients the same rights that you received when
Actually the LGPL does if such contracts are about patent licenses (quotes from GPLv2.1, but other versions have similar obligations):
Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a restrictive license from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use specified in this license.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 3, 2010 15:08 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Don Diego is talking about the case where you distribute GPLed code where
you have *no* agreement with any patent licensors. This is perfectly acceptable, at least wrt the licence.
It is a fallacy to say that every distributor of GPLed software must ensure they
See also my other reply, an uncle of sorts to this one.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 15:28 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Actually the LGPL does if such contracts are about patent licenses
> (quotes from GPLv2.1, but other versions have similar obligations):
> Finally, software patents pose a constant threat [...]
This is from the preamble of the LGPL. As it has no effect on the license itself and is in no way legally binding, it is best ignored.
> If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
This just means that other contracts do not excuse you from the obligations of the LGPL. Any downstream recipient must continue to receive the full LGPL rights, the redistributor is not allowed to restrict them, no matter what other obligations say.
If somebody has a contract with the devil that claims a limb for each redistribution of FFmpeg then that person will quickly run out of limbs and then have a serious problem with the devil, but with nobody else.
Downstream recipients are not affected. They have no contract with the devil, they need not fear for their limbs, they just need to abide by the terms of the LGPL.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 15:48 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
> This is from the preamble of the LGPL. As it has no effect on the license itself and is in no way legally binding, it is best ignored.
Of course it is not smart to ignore the text of the license. The preamble makes clear what the intent is of the legal clauses. In case their is any doubt how to interpret a particular clause one looks at the intent to see that "any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use".
> > if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
Yes, but it does affect the (re)distributor. If they get a patent license, then they have to make sure that it covers not only themselves, but also all the recipients of any copies of the library. You might think that is the problem of those who take out such a patent license, and that they would be foolish to get into a contract with something like the MPEG LA. (And you might be right about that.) But it is still a real problem for such companies that do.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 16:02 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > This is from the preamble of the LGPL. As it has no effect on the license itself and is in no way legally binding, it is best ignored.
>Of course it is not smart to ignore the text of the license. The preamble makes clear what the intent is of the legal clauses. In case their is any doubt how to interpret a particular clause one looks at the intent to see that "any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use".
Sure? OK, let's try:
PREAMBLE
The book club is a non-profit, for-good, honest, no-nonsense organization that strives to bring its members peace, prosperity, happiness and easy access to their favorite books with absolutely no hooks attached
CONTRACT
666. (f) If you have read this far, we will now inform you that we will send you a few books per week at not exactly premium conditions. They will be a random choice of the old stuff we could not sell otherwise. You may not give them back and pay within three days.
Construct a slightly less contrived example if you wish, but still the fact remains: the preamble is not legally binding.
> > This just means that other contracts do not excuse you from the obligations of the LGPL. [...] Downstream recipients are not affected.
> Yes, but it does affect the (re)distributor. If they get a patent license, then they have to make sure that it covers not only themselves, but also all the recipients of any copies of the library.
No. BTW, the SFLC agrees with us.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 16:49 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Can you provide a reference to SFLC's interpretation? I haven't
seen it
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 17:53 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I can see if I get something in writing, it's all from talks with one of our devs that also lives in New York so far.
Much more importantly, this is the official interpretation of FFmpeg. Since we are the copyright owners, our interpretation is the one that matters. We still need to put that in writing.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:00 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
If you want your claims to be taken seriously it needs to be in writing If
you are repeatedly going to refer to claims about SFLC's interpretation it would be beneficial to get it in writing as well
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:07 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I am an FFmpeg copyright holder, so you already have a statement from me. We shall try to make something more official and put it on our website.
I would like you to provide me with the contrary interpretation in writing as well. You claim that the FSF has made statements to a different effect, but I never saw such a thing.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:27 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Collectively a group making a statement is quite different from a single
copyright holder and I made no claims about FSF's interpretations You are confusing me with someone else
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 15:59 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Are you saying that a patent licensor can continue to distribute a GPLed work
implementing that patent even when the licence is not passed on? That doesn't seem to in concordance with the GPL.. Though I can't tell if you're claiming that, or if you're just talking about the rights of the downstreams.
Where you seemed to be saying that non-licensees were unaffected (other
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 15:59 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
a patent licen/see/. Grr.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 17:58 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
That's exactly what I'm saying. A patent licensee can continue distributing FFmpeg under the LGPL no matter what other side deals are in effect.
|
|||||||||||||