> > 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
> doesn't have a license.
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
> usage, that's too bad for you.
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...