I replied, with questions for clarification:
Thank you for the information. I think I grok, but I do have two
From Allen Harkness on Thursday, 28 January, 2010:
>In response to your specific question, under the Licenses royalties are
>paid on all MPEG-4 Visual/AVC products of like functionality, and the
>Licenses do not make any distinction for products offered for free
>(whether open source or otherwise). But, I do note that the Licenses
>addresses this issue by including annual minimum thresholds below which
>no royalties are payable in order to encourage adoption and minimize the
>impact on lower volume users. In addition, the Licenses also include
What are these thresholds? Ideally, I'd like numbers, but information
on whether it's monetary or downloads is more than I have now.
>maximum annual royalty caps to provide more cost predictability for
>larger volume users.
How does this work in an open source or Free software setup, where
the source code is modifiable and re-distributable? Are downloads
from the licensee only covered?
Two scenarios come to mind:
1) A corporation has a customized (i.e. modified) build of Google's
Chrome (which includes an implmentation of ffmpeg), and then
re-distributes this modified binary to all of the workstations at
the company. Is this covered by Google's license?
2) A corporation downloads one copy of Chrome from Google, and redistributes
these internally to its workstations. Is this covered by Google's license?
3) Same scenarios as above, but for a home user distributing to others.
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. :)