> > 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
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.
Not talking about software patents does not make them any less harmful.
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
> > 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."
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.