FFMPEG violate MPEGLA licensing?

[komisar]

Where is the THRUTH?

As neuron2 say (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1427791#post1427791):2. Interestingly, FFMPEG and related projects stand in blatant violation of the MPEGLA licensing. There is no exception for free or open source products and they ship more than the threshold number of units to be liable for payment of royalties. FFMPEG does not appear on the MPEGLA "good standing" list.

And as banned Dark Shikari say:This is not correct. ffmpeg ships zero units, and thus is not in violation of anything. Companies that distribute ffmpeg binaries often do have MPEG-LA licenses. I work for one that does. Please spread your FUD elsewhere.

I have something (or someone) should be afraid?
Where is the THRUTH?

[Guest]

Thank you for starting a dedicated thread about it as I originally requested! Keep this civil and do not discuss forum rules or their interpretation and we can have a fine discussion about it.

The truth is this:

FFMPEG is in violation. They are a supplier of AVC decoders to end users and so are subject to MPEGLA licensing.

A licensed supplier that happens to supply FFMPEG cannot pass its license backwards to FFMPEG. If FFMPEG supplies to end users, it must be licensed, period. And it makes no difference whether they supply the decoder free. This was personally told to me today by telephone by Ryan Rodriguez, a licensing agent for MPEGLA.

Since FFMPEG supplies decoders directly to end users via its download page, it must be licensed by MPEGLA. Of course if they want to fight the patent pool on other grounds, good luck with that.

*** EDIT: As seen below, the FFMPEG project is *not* in violation, to the extent that they do not supply binaries, because source code is not a "product". I am sorry for my incorrect statement about this (which originated from a not fully clear phone conversation with MPEGLA), and for any confusion/bad feelings it may have engendered. ***

[MasterNobody]

Then the question. What do you mean by "supplier of AVC decoders" when they only supply source code?

[komisar]

neuron2, sorry, but is the FFMPEG project contribute binaries for the end-user? Or I misunderstood the licenses?

[Guest]

Well, now you raise an interesting question. I don't know the significance of the binary/source code distinction. I will call again to inquire right now.

Stand by...

[kieranrk]

What about DGDec's mpeg-2 decoder?

[JEEB]

Well, now you raise an interesting question. I don't know the significance of the binary/source code distinction. I will call again to inquire right now.

Stand by...
Alright, thank you. This is a sound way to get some kind of an official opinion on the matter. In my personal opinion source code is there, while actual units of the application aren't given out (binaries).

But we shall see, thanks for taking the time and calling out to MPEG-LA.

What about DGDec's mpeg-2 decoder?
Now that's a good question as well. These kind of things do actually affect most, if not all, of us.

[Guest]

Ryan has just clarified that indeed source code is not a "product" in the required sense. He clarified that anybody creating a product using FFMPEG source code is a supplier, so anyone compiling and supplying the binary library would be subject to licensing.

I will clarify my original post. Thank you for educating me about that important distinction.

Isn't it interesting how civil discourse can quickly lead to a resolution of disagreements where insults and profanity cannot.

[Guest]

Alright, thank you. This is a sound way to get some kind of an official opinion on the matter. In my personal opinion source code is there, while actual units of the application aren't given out (binaries).

But we shall see, thanks for taking the time and calling out to MPEG-LA.


Now that's a good question as well. These kind of things do actually affect most, if not all, of us. I do not supply binaries for DGMPGDec at neuron2.net.

Note that DGDecNV is not affected as it does not supply the decoder.

[poisondeathray]

Sorry if this is a dumb question , but is there a distinction between commercial distribution and non-commerical ?

For example, I can download ffdshow from sourceforge , and that has various MPEG2/4 decoders, would they need a license ?

EDIT: sorry I didn't see the last post about decoders before posting

[Guest]

For example, I can download ffdshow from sourceforge , and that has various MPEG2/4 decoders, would they need a license ? If sourceforge is making available binaries, then they are "supplying an AVC decoder product" and so they must be licensed.

If only source code is supplied, then no license is required.

[kieranrk]

Is this one licensed?

http://neuron2.net/dgmpgdec/dgmpgdec.html

[komisar]

neuron2, but as x264-free-builder I need to pay to MPEGLA for my x264.kMod (because it include compiled FFMPEG decoders)?

[Guest]

Is this one licensed?

http://neuron2.net/dgmpgdec/dgmpgdec.html JEEB already asked and I already answered.

[Guest]

neuron2, but as x264-free-builder I need to pay to MPEGLA for my x264.kMod (because it include compiled FFMPEG decoders)? If you supply a compiled product containing an AVC decoder to end users, then you must be licensed.

Please feel free to call Ryan directly, as he is very friendly and helpful. Here is the exchange I had earlier when I asked for the materials I need for licensing:

-----
Hi, Don.

Thank you for your kind remarks. It is my pleasure to assist you and I
am glad to know that my explanation was helpful.

As promised, today I will send you an execution copy of our AVC License
for your signature. You should receive the License document shortly via
FedEx.

In the meantime, if you have additional questions or need assistance
during your review, just let me know. I look forward to hearing from
you again soon.

Best regards,

Ryan

Ryan M. Rodriguez
Licensing Associate
5425 Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 801
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
USA
Telephone: +1 301 986 6660 x211
Fax: +1 301 986 8575
Email: rrodriguez@mpegla.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Graft [mailto:donald.graft@cantab.net]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:46 PM
To: Ryan Rodriguez
Subject: RE: AVC licensing for very small provider?

Hello Ryan,

Thank you very much for taking the time to advise me and for
the PDF of the AVC license agreement. The situation is now
crystal clear after your cogent explanation.

Please do send me the license file for execution.

My company can be listed simply as neuron2, as that is my
identity for sales of my product. So:

neuron2
c/o Donald A. Graft
[snip address and phone numbers]

Once again, thank you for your prompt attention and for making
contacting MPEGLA a very pleasant experience.

best regards,
Don


>Hi, Donald.
>
>Thank you for taking my call. It was a pleasure speaking with you.
>
>As discussed, I have attached a .pdf copy of our AVC License for your
>easy reference. Please note that the electronic copy is provided for
>informational purposes only. When signing the License, only the hard
>copy provided by MPEG LA may be used. Therefore, if you will please
>provide your company and physical mailing address, I will be send you
an
>execution copy of the License immediately FedEx.
>
>I look forward to hearing from you again soon.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ryan
>
>Ryan M. Rodriguez
>Licensing Associate
>5425 Wisconsin Avenue
>Suite 801
>Chevy Chase, MD 20815
>USA
>Telephone: +1 301 986 6660 x211
>Fax: +1 301 986 8575
>Email: rrodriguez@mpegla.com
-----

[ender`]

Is the license needed even if the binaries are only provided in regions that don't have software patents (we are talking about a pure software en/decoders here)? If yes, on what basis?

[Guest]

I'm not qualified to address that. Please consult your attorney and/or MPEGLA.

[JEEB]

Yes, of course. I will get the license and then decide whether to become street legal or to withdraw it (or just withdraw the binaries). My recollection from the past, however, was that MPEG2 decoders had a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" exception. But it's better to be on firm legal ground, so I will follow up and report back here.

Note that DGDecNV is not affected as it does not supply the decoder.

Alrighty then.

If you supply a compiled product containing an AVC decoder to end users, then you must be licensed.

Please feel free to call Ryan directly, as he is very friendly and helpful. Here is the exchange I had earlier when I asked for the materials I need for licensing:

--

And thank you for this information. Now I have some kind of actual contact information towards MPEG-LA instead of the faceless side it shows up on its informative sites. Might come up helpful if I ever get this certain project of mine under actual work that's been brewing for a few months now >_>

[Guest]

Yes, in fact I was surprised how easy it is to get licensed. For little people like you and I, there are no royalties due to the low volumes. If you get to the point of having to pay royalties, you will be very happy about it. :)

[bob0r]

" The FFMPEG project is *not* in violation. "

Dark Shikari unbanned yet? Given an apology yet? Did you order a make good cake yet?

[manono]

bob0r,
Your post is a borderline Rule 4 violation. Just to refresh your memory, it goes, "Be nice to each other and respect the moderator. Profanity and insults will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with another member turn to the respective moderator and if the moderator can't help you send a private message to Doom9." The rules are there for a reason. If you're unhappy with something outside the subject of this thread, you are free to take it to the 'boss'. This is not the place to air your grievances. Consider yourself (and anyone else thinking of coming in here with off-topic gripes) warned.

http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm

[ChronoCross]

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that source code wasn't considered a product long before this. I remember that from back in the pre-x264 xvid/divx popularity days how the source v. binary rules played an impact on why there were so many different builds. How in the world did this concept suddenly come into question? I guess a better question would be that if FFMPEG were in violation wouldn't the MPEGLA already have come after them long ago since they are pretty much the largest and most well known decoder?

[bob0r]

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that source code wasn't considered a product long before this. I remember that from back in the pre-x264 xvid/divx popularity days how the source v. binary rules played an impact on why there were so many different builds. How in the world did this concept suddenly come into question? I guess a better question would be that if FFMPEG were in violation wouldn't the MPEGLA already have come after them long ago since they are pretty much the largest and most well known decoder?

Why do you think i created x264.nl? It's pretty laughable source code isn't a product. But also understandable, freedom is writing bla bla. Anyways it's all cleared up, ffmpeg is as legal as downloading a Blu-ray Disc in The Netherlands, so we all happy again!

[Sharktooth]

Uhm, that makes a lot of software illegal, including megui (and other guis including ffmpeg and derived softwares), ffms(2) avisynth plugin, mplayer, mpc-hc, vlc (maybe) and so on (including all softwares that include libavcodec and MAJOR linux distros too...).
If this is the case, expect major changes in megui... and long live VP8...
I will make an official statement on megui project page on sourceforge as soon as i get a response from my lawyer.

[Selur]

I will make an official statement on megui project page on sourceforge as soon as i get a response from my lawyer.
A post in the news section would also be appreciated since this really seems interesting to the majority of the gui writers that not only supply the gui but a binary package (including for the tools the gui is ment for) for convenience.

[Guest]

You can blame me for being uninformed on the source code/binary distinction. But based on the replies here, perhaps it wasn't as widely known as it should have been.

As explained on the FFMPEG legal page, the patent issue gives a lot of room for wiggle. If you supply your product in a country that does not honor software patents, then the whole MPEGLA issue appears moot. How can they come after you?

So that opens the possibility for GUI suppliers to supply only source code, while some kind soul in a non-SW-patent country (who is therefore not vulnerable to any action by MPEGLA) makes builds and supplies them.

So suppliers are wise to look into their individual situations. Small unincorporated operations, whether open source or not (such as MEGUI, mpc-hc, "neuron2", etc.) need to be secure against any potential legal liability, because there is no corporation to shield against personal liability.

[shon3i]

Uhm, that makes a lot of software illegal, including megui (and other guis including ffmpeg and derived softwares), ffms(2) avisynth plugin, mplayer, mpc-hc, vlc (maybe) and so on (including all softwares that include libavcodec and MAJOR linux distros too...).
If this is the case, expect major changes in megui... and long live VP8...
I will make an official statement on megui project page on sourceforge as soon as i get a response from my lawyer.
What you think why Google acquired VP8, to prevent all illegal nightmares. We need to agree with fact that any of MPEG stuff is not suitable for open source and free use.

[Selur]

" while some kind soul in a non-SW-patent country" -> so no luck in Europe, U.S.A, Japan,....

[Underground78]

" while some kind soul in a non-SW-patent country" -> so no luck in Europe, U.S.A, Japan,....

Well I remember VLC developers saying that thanks to being based in France there was no problem.

[quantum5uicid3]

the 2nd result of a google search on terms "ffmpeg mpegla" is:
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties (http://lwn.net/Articles/371439/)

[Sharktooth]

Got an answer from my lawyer. We can't distribute those software binaries in those countries with "certain" software patents laws, such as US or South Korea (not completely sure about the latter).
So, basically, US ppl can use MeGUI but they (we're ok coz we show a choice screen) will have to block the download of ffmpeg, mplayer, ffms2, dgindex, etc. binaries.

[Guest]

the 2nd result of a google search on terms "ffmpeg mpegla" is:
FFmpeg vs. MPEG-LA royalties (http://lwn.net/Articles/371439/) I don't see anything about the distinction between binaries and source code at that link. What is there that you are drawing to our attention?

[Guest]

So, basically, US ppl can use MeGUI but they (we're ok coz we show a choice screen) will have to block the download of ffmpeg, mplayer, ffms2, dgindex, etc. binaries. That's not clear. What does this mean:

"we're ok coz we show a choice screen"

And who is "we"?

Why are your x264 binaries (linked in your sig) exempt?

[Sharktooth]

we, the coders, are not commiting illegal acts (for the US laws) coz megui lets you choose the updates (the choice screen). to be on the safe side we just have to add an informative text about the offending softwares to make US users aware of the problem.
Why are your x264 binaries (linked in your sig) exempt?
coz i live in italy where Article 52 EPC excludes "programs for computers" from patentability (Art. 52(2)) to the extent that a patent application relates to a computer program "as such" (Art. 52(3)). however, my x264 builds are discontinued and if you click on the link it will redirect to the "Get the latest x264" thread where there are no links to builds of mine.
however more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention

[quantum5uicid3]

I don't see anything about the distinction between binaries and source code at that link. What is there that you are drawing to our attention?

the documented viewpoint on matter at hand coming directly from a dev.

who's going to sue a gpl'd project that isn't using stolen code? Sue megui(a program released under the gpl) for hosting binaries to other gpl(and similar) licensed software? What purpose would it serve? From a business perspective, it's in the mpeg-la's best interest to allow the open source implementations of their standards to continue to operate. It ensures further market saturation and thus a higher demand from the tech companies looking to reap the benefits.

[lexor]

the documented viewpoint on matter at hand coming directly from a dev.

who's going to sue a gpl'd project that isn't using stolen code? Sue megui(a program released under the gpl) for hosting binaries to other gpl(and similar) licensed software? What purpose would it serve? From a business perspective, it's in the mpeg-la's best interest to allow the open source implementations of their standards to continue to operate. It ensures further market saturation and thus a higher demand from the tech companies looking to reap the benefits.

That's an extremely shaky ground. You are arguing that MPEGLA and Co. don't have a reason to sue and major commercial competition doesn't hold the patents to sue over. But the commercial/proprietary tool makers can lobby MPEGLA and demand something along the lines of "why the hell are you charging us money if all those guys get to do it for free, have you seen sourceforge download counts?".

And now you have MPEGLA suing you (the distributor) for all you've got. Sharktooth and Neuron2 are doing the correct and sensible thing here.

[Guest]

Exactly. All these arguments like "they'd never sue us because..." are irrelevant and dangerous.

[Guest]

Specifically regarding DiAVC supplied by schweinsz in China (rather than by me), the situation is murky because the software patent rights in China are very narrow. For example, a "pure SW" product is not patentable. MPEGLA would have to test this in court in China if they wished to go after DiAVC. There's a good chance that they would not prevail.

These are highly gray areas. But in my case it's clear, I have to be licensed to avoid personal liability.

[Sharktooth]

im not sure about that. you can distribute your software thru a server in a country where there are no software patents.

[quantum5uicid3]

are you aware that german company nero recently opened an antitrust case against the mpeg-la?

[Guest]

I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for that:

http://www.google.com/search?q=nero+suit+against+mpegla&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

In any case, if MPEGLA is somehow defeated then the primary patent holders will need to be addressed directly.

[Sharktooth]

that would be a problem... a HUGE problem...
http://newteevee.com/2010/05/25/nero-sues-mpeg-la-alleges-greed-abuse-of-power/?utm_source=gigaom&utm_medium=recent-posts

[Kuukunen]

I Am Not A Lawyer, so take everything here with a mountain of salt. This is just my take, so feel free to correct me.

The part of the license that's relevant for ffmpeg's case says that you have to potentially pay royalties whenever you "Sell AVC Products", where the license defines:

AVC Product(s) – shall mean any product or thing in whatever form which constitutes or contains one or more fully functioning AVC Decoder(s), AVC Encoder(s) or AVC Codec(s). AVC Product(s) shall not include OEM AVC Products.
AVC Codec(s) – shall mean any single product or thing which incorporates the full functionality of both one AVC Decoder and one AVC
Encoder. Any single product or thing which incorporates more than one AVC Decoder and/or more than one AVC Encoder shall
constitute more than one AVC Codec.
AVC Decoder(s) – shall mean a decoder used to decode AVC Video.
AVC Encoder(s) – shall mean an encoder used to create AVC Video.
Sale (Sell) (Sold) (Seller) – shall mean any sale, rental, lease, license, copying, transfer, reproduction, Transmission, or other form of
distribution of an AVC Product or the Transmission by any means of AVC Video either directly or through a chain of distribution.

So, as you can see, Selling (capitalized) also includes free products. (Which you already probably knew from the Mozilla thing.)

But more importantly, it says a Product is "fully functioning AVC Decoder(s), AVC Encoder(s) or AVC Codec(s)", which source code is not. (I guess.)

However... as far as I know, the license is essentially a contract between you and MPEG LA, so the license terms might not even be the same for everyone. (EDIT: As in Nero's case, where they apparently made a special agreement regarding the trial versions.) Meaning, it doesn't technically even matter what the license terms are if you don't make a license agreement. If you don't have a license, like ffmpeg as far as I know, the only question is: "Will they sue you?"

In the strictest sense, to be safe from litigation, every single entity that ever deals with H.264 in any way should make a license agreement with MPEG LA even when you don't have to pay royalties because of small quantities, or you are not even doing anything covered in the license. (Again, since the license doesn't apply until you actually have it.)

Then, speaking about legality... "legal" and "illegal" are not very well defined here. The fact a company has a patent on something and says "you can't do X", doesn't mean that's how it goes. (Like the Nero case just mentioned. Or the Bilski case(s).) As we've seen from many court cases, having a patent doesn't automatically mean the patent even holds in court and even if it does, it might not mean you can't do X. Usually however, the threat of potentially very costly legal case is enough to make people obey.

MPEG LA claims it (or the companies it represents) holds essential patents in 57 countries. But it's not given those patents will hold in court, especially in countries where software patents are frowned upon. (I bet they still do have what are essentially software patents in those countries too.)

All in all, these things are so convoluted the boundary of "What's legal?" is very, very vague and when the push comes to shove, the vague parts of the border are mostly defined by the perhaps even more important question: "Who has more lawyers?"

So neuron2, "they'd never sue us because..." is what every single legal entity has to evaluate whenever they do anything related to H.264.

[NanoBot]

Sorry if this is a dumb question , but is there a distinction between commercial distribution and non-commerical ?

That's depending on the laws of the country you live in. E.g. the german patent law §11 says:


"The effect of the patent does not extend up

1. Actions, which are made within the private sector for not-commercial purposes;"

...


So here in Germany, all those patents the MPEG LA holds, do not forbid anyone to use the patented methods for non-commercial, private purposes at all.

C.U. NanoBot

[Ghitulescu]

Is the license needed even if the binaries are only provided in regions that don't have software patents (we are talking about a pure software en/decoders here)? If yes, on what basis?
No. For patents. But it may be an YES for the copyright, assuming your country signed the Bern convention (there are a handful that didn't sign it).

The patents require a final product that is a commercial product, and any product that is delivered as a "kit of parts" and/or not sold does not qualify for this.

But ask your attorney to be sure.

[bob0r]

neuron2 i blame you for being uninformed on the source code/binary distinction.

I'd like to know what Dark Shikari can add to this story.
He's words often seem correct rather then incorrect.

[lexor]

Specifically regarding DiAVC supplied by schweinsz in China (rather than by me), the situation is murky because the software patent rights in China are very narrow. For example, a "pure SW" product is not patentable. MPEGLA would have to test this in court in China if they wished to go after DiAVC. There's a good chance that they would not prevail.
In fact it's almost a certainty that they would not prevail.

If you didn't develop it in China, you can't patent/copyright it in China. Software or hardware, it doesn't matter. Something that can be clearly marked as the Core of H264 technology needs to be developed in China for anybody to have any way of enforcing it there. I don't believe that this is the case.

This is the reason many companies maintain design centers in China, so they can acquire/defend patents on products manufactured by Chinese outsourcing plants. Those that don't get no protection from clones and other copy-cats.

If DiAVC is indeed developed in China by a Chinese citizen, no one can go after it without major re-work of Chinese patent/copyright law, which in turn is highly unlikely. They could try curtail distribution of it in other countries (if it gets too big/popular )

[Astrophizz]

I agree with bob0r, I'm pretty sure most of the ffmpeg developers (like Dark Shikari for example) are aware of its legal standing and that's why ffmpeg is distributed in such a way.

[ender`]

No. For patents. But it may be an YES for the copyright, assuming your country signed the Bern convention (there are a handful that didn't sign it).Copyright only comes in question if I'd be using actual code owned by MPEG-LA. As far as I know, no part of ffmpeg (or x264) uses any MPEG-LA code - the copyright holders are different, and they licensed the code under the GPL and/or LGPL licenses.

[lych_necross]

I agree with bob0r, I'm pretty sure most of the ffmpeg developers (like Dark Shikari for example) are aware of its legal standing and that's why ffmpeg is distributed in such a way.
No, FFmpeg is not aware of their legal standing. Straight from their legal page (http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html):
Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms?
A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this. Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented.
Simply put, FFmpeg doesn't know if they are in violation or not.

[Kuukunen]

Isn't the whole point of calling the patents "essential" that you can't make a H.264 decoder/encoder without violating them?
I'm pretty sure they know they are in fact most likely using algorithms covered by the patents, but again, it's better not to make legal claims like that when you're not qualified to make them.

[Guest]

Following up on the queries about DGMPGDec...

I do not supply binaries at neuron2.net. Users have to build it themselves or find the binaries elsewhere.

The AVC licensing has the 100,000 unit cutoff, under which no royalties are payable. The MPEG2 licensing requires a $2.50 royalty per unit without any cutoff! That is a terrible potential liability given that DGMPGDec is supplied free and is widely used.

I'd be interested in hearing from any possible binary hosts in non-liable countries.

[Rumbah]

What most people seem to forget is that patents have to be granted in every single country. So before they can sue anyone in that country they have to get the patents granted or otherwise they have nothing to sue about. So aside from the non commercial part I don't think that the MPEGLA companies hold any patents in Germany (or China).

And with the source code and binary distinction you could publish the source code as a book to export and spread as in the 80s and 90s for encryption software.

[Disabled]

Nice to see this is being discussed.
IMO, there are a few solutions for h264 related distribution becoming legal:
1) Every binary distributor registers with the MPEG LA and only allows 100,000 downloads per year.
2) Someone registers with the MPEG LA, creates a page, where people can register for free. With the registration, they "buy" a h264 licence, so I guess at least updates can be distributet for free. So one person can supply 100,000 Persons with h264 licenses.
Ideally one could create a platform, where more then one distributor supplies binaries, so distributors don't have to create a page on their own. Every distributor had to aquire a license and could support 100,000 persons again.
Note: IIRC Betaboy once claimed, they had to pay licenses even for updates, but I don't trust that statement. Someone should ask the MPEGLA about that though.
3) The Gentoo way: Distribute only the source with a script that builds the binary automatically. Thats of course a bit of a hassle for small things like x264. But ffmpeg has far bigger problems then the h264 license, they distribute many codecs without license and it would be quite a big problem to gain them all. So for those projects it would probably be the best solution.
4) If a distributor lives in a country that doesn't have software patents and he hosts his stuff in a country without software patents, he can safely distribute copies to people living in countries without software patents. If the distributor is allowed to distribute the software to US people is up to a court. He is probably not allowed to export it to the US, but if a US citizen "buys" it in another country and imports it to the
US, its probably legal. I don't know of any court decision about a similar things though.

IMO for x264 and similar, solution 1 & 2 would be the best. For ffmpeg solution 3 would be the only viable thing.
Projects like Megui that distribute ffmpeg code IMO only have solution 3 or 4.

On a side note: The h264 license costs a maximum of 0.20$ per license. So it might even be possible to distribute more then 100k licenses on an advertisement basis.

[quantum5uicid3]

i don't think gpl is compatible with mpeg-la license

[Guest]

i don't think gpl is compatible with mpeg-la license Can you elaborate on that please?

[Disabled]

You are probably right quantum. If you receive for instance x264 in the USA from a MPEG licensed distributor, you are not allowed to distribute the binary at will, because you need an MPEG LA license and after 100k copies, you have to pay them. So the licenses are incompatible. But under that premise, its impossible to distribute GPLd h264 binaries in the USA legally. Unless you do what DarkShikari did, ask every code contributor for the permission to commercially distribute the software, so you dual license the software: GPL for everyone who doesn't care about patents, and a second license together with an mpeg license for those who care about patents.

[Fr4nz]

This is a crystal-clear case which shows that software patents kill innovation and favour monopolies.
The legislation which regulates this matter should be heaviliy revisited.

[Guest]

So the licenses are incompatible. They are not incompatible. You just have multiple responsibilities to bear.

[Disabled]

GPL says if you get the software you are free to distribute it for free. Thats not the case in the USA, so they are incompatible.

[iwod]

No, FFmpeg is not aware of their legal standing. Straight from their legal page (http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html):

Simply put, FFmpeg doesn't know if they are in violation or not.

It is not they dont know. It is mainly because as a dev they dont care.

1. They are not based in US. And most of the dev aren't from US. They have no such thing as Software patent. Much like what EU and UK judges argues that US is trying to patents everything under the sun.

2. There are about Zillions of Software Patents. To read up everything and remember not implement them is totally impractical if that is even possible for human being.

3. Even if they are in violation of a patents, they are not providing any binaries. You are perfectly legal to download the source code and compile it for yourself even if you are in US.
Compiling in itself is not illegal. Using it is a different matter in US.

[quantum5uicid3]

Can you elaborate on that please?

philosophically more than legally, because the legalities of the gpl are equally murky waters. this is a discussion that transcends into the current state of United States patents on abstract ideas even if the simple machine or transformation test applies, ie algorithm patents. this is not a new or cut and dry discussion, it's almost like discussing politics or religion. :)

[Guest]

GPL says if you get the software you are free to distribute it for free. It seems that you are correct if a royalty applies. Here is the relevant section of GPL:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License. They are apparently compatible for the cases where no royalty applies, for example, the 100,000 AVC cutoff case.

[Disabled]

You are right neuron2, as long as its free it should be compatible. But in the end it is... half compatible? A little compatible? very compatible?
IMO if you enforce the gpl, they are incompatible.
Still if you get an MPEG license, the authors of the GPL software had to sue you to get into trouble. Then a judge had to interpret the GPL and tell right from wrong.

For x264, we could ask the x264 LLC, they might make an GPL exception for free licenses for GPL code. (link) (http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html).

Pretty much all other projects use ffmpeg anyways (which this thread is about) and they have to many codecs to license that can't be licensed for free.

[seemees]

All h264 code made of A SINGLE programmers. And patent holders now FAR AWAY from true IDEA, that they HOLD. Without good free coding programmers we never have h264, CUDA, emulators and so on. Only reach company CAN PAY for license, and CAN ENSLAVE all of us. Cause new generation of programmers CAN NOT do a simple os code, simple edit, play and convert software. All "new tools" is MONSTRO being. 4Gigabytes, 8Gigabytes, 25Gigabytes. Are you Remember sony playstation 3 and all game for her? Its absurd theater. All game of sony playstation use h264 for video sequence. But all thouse product is emptyness. It's tones Gigabytes of nothing. And real pay
of user consist of true lie. "My product is cost $555.0". But why? Money is only paper - or you don't know it? One who prints the money - prints our all slaveness. If MPEGLA
hold patent. Let it hold. But all that we can give MPEGLA - is respect for good IDEA. And make from IDEA to stand alone program (binary) - it is ours. It is ours life. Think about patent of clear air. All who breath must get license for any single inhale. h264 is a planetary invention, like an sun shine.

With best regards, seemees

[bob0r]

...
I'd be interested in hearing from any possible binary hosts in non-liable countries.

For €10000 a month í'm your man.

[lych_necross]

It is not they dont know. It is mainly because as a dev they dont care. [...]
And that is the problem. They created a great piece of software without regard to others intellectual property and then release it worldwide (again without regard for others IP). For everyone's sake, I hope MPEG LA gets defeated and this whole mess goes away.

[quantum5uicid3]

"in re bilski", proves that the supreme court will not be doing away with software patents anytime soon. so the patents themselves will not be going away, what we can hope for is that the DOJ does actually take a good look at the mpeg-la and if any monopolistic abuses are occurring, take appropriate measures. us citizens write your congressman. :)

[Sharktooth]

And that is the problem. They created a great piece of software without regard to others intellectual property and then release it worldwide (again without regard for others IP). For everyone's sake, I hope MPEG LA gets defeated and this whole mess goes away.
If MPEG-LA gets defeated it would become a whole mess.
Every patent would have to be licensed by every single patent holder.
MPEG-LA is a patent pool and it is supposed to simplify things...
The ideal solution is MPEG-LA does exactly what it was created for with a bit of flexibility.

[Reimar]

And that is the problem. They created a great piece of software without regard to others intellectual property and then release it worldwide (again without regard for others IP).

This sounds a bit too much for an accusation to my tastes. What do you expect volunteers that usually don't earn any money with it to do on a subject that even a lawyer at best can tell you "well, probably it doesn't apply at all to you neither in your country of residence nor where the project is hosted, and in some other parts of the world 'they' can sue you into bancrupcy completely independent of whether they're right or wrong. But I'm not going to promise anything at all.".
Particularly since taking a license from MPEG-LA doesn't change that situation at all in principle, it just changes your chances.

[Ghitulescu]

Is the IRS compatible with VAT, to give an example from the US?

A licence is an agreement, nothing more.

You can distribute the code and the binaries both under GPL/GPL2 and MPEG-LA, provided you pay the royalties for MPEG-LA (part of the deal). Where's the legal problem? Where's the incompatibility? That a free developer should pay for other people to be happy with his free software? It's just a financial issue ...

[PatchWorKs]

Calm guyz, wait a moment.

FFMPEG is in the same position of XviD: sources doesn't violate laws, binaries does.

[mariush]

If MPEG-LA gets defeated it would become a whole mess.
Every patent would have to be licensed by every single patent holder.
MPEG-LA is a patent pool and it is supposed to simplify things...
The ideal solution is MPEG-LA does exactly what it was created for with a bit of flexibility.

In an ideal world, a company like MPEG-LA would be great.

However, as far as I understand, they started this and they were an exception as were accepted by US government as a company licensing a series of "essentials" patents, limited in number.

Over the years, every few months or so, MPEG-LA found more "essential" patents to add to the pool, thus extending artificially the time and preventing the standard from going free, and forcing people to pay licenses for longer time.

I think this was explained better in Nero's lawsuit press release, where they accuse them of monopoly or something like that.

Later edit: Yes, here it is:

Back in 1997, the MPEG-LA sought a promise from the US Department of Justice that it would not initiate any antitrust investigations against the licensing body. The DOJ expressed then that it currently had no intention of acting upon the MPEG-LA, but this lack of intention was conditioned on a number of things.

First, the MPEG-LA would engage with independent experts to ensure only essential patents would be placed in the MPEG-2 pool. They told the DOJ that the MPEG-2 pool constituted of 53 essential patents. Second, independent experts would "weed out nonessential patents" from the pool. Third, licensing terms would be "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory".

Nero claims none of these safeguards were honoured, and here's where it gets juicy; "absolute power has corrupted the MPEG-LA absolutely", according to Nero. First of all, the so-called independent expert was anything but independent. The expert helped form the MPEG-LA, helped in drafting the first MPEG-LA licensing agreements, answers questions from licensees on behalf of the MPEG-LA, has attended business settlement meetings on behalf of the MPEG-LA, and has testified before US congress on behalf of the MPEG-LA. Heck, he is listed on the MPEG-LA website as "MPEG-LA's US patent counsel".

Nero also claims that the MPEG-LA has unlawfully extended its patent pools by adding non-essential patents to the MPEG-2 patent pool. Even though the MPEG-LA told the DOJ there were only 53 essential MPEG-2 patents, the non-independent expert added round and about 800 more patents to the pool, extending the duration of the patent pool, since the old, 53 essential patents expired.

"On information and belief, MPEG LA has similarly extended the duration and scope of its monopoly power in the relevant technology markets for the licensing of patents relating to the MPEG-4 Visual and AVC [H264] standards by adding nonessential patents to its MPEG-4 Visual and AVC pools, which now contain more than 1000 and 1300 patents, respectively," Nero further claims.

Nero further claims that the MPEG-LA has "formulated and imposed licensing terms that are unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory", by charging different royalty rates from licensees for the same MPEG-2 license and by not making any downward adjustment in line with the "rapid and dramatic" decrease in costs of implementing the MPEG-2 standard. In addition, the MPEG-LA collects royalties for the same device multiple times (internal hardware, software, monitor, etc.), and the licensing body has failed to "communicate its policies equally to all licensees".


http://www.osnews.com/story/23346/Nero_Files_Antitrust_Case_Against_MPEG-LA

[Sharktooth]

im only saying the ideal solution is MPEG-LA keeps a FAIR patent pool and stops doing unfair practices.

[ender`]

You can distribute the code and the binaries both under GPL/GPL2 and MPEG-LA, provided you pay the royalties for MPEG-LA (part of the deal). Where's the legal problem? Where's the incompatibility? That a free developer should pay for other people to be happy with his free software? It's just a financial issue ...You're wrong here. GPL requires you to provide any patent free of charge to anybody who uses your GPL-licensed code, or any code derived from it. As far as I know, MPEG-LA does not grant you such a license, so you can't legally distribute code that is covered by a patent.

[zn]

ffmpeg guys probably need to add similar to lame project FAQ to website (if they haven't)

http://lame.sourceforge.net/tech-FAQ.txt


6. Does LAME use any MP3 patented technology?

LAME, as the name says, is *not* an encoder. LAME is a development
project which uses the open source model to improve MP3 technology.
Many people believe that compiling this code and distributing an
encoder which uses this code would violate some patents (in the US,
Europe and Japan). However, *only* a patent lawyer is qualified to
make this determination. The LAME project tries to avoid all these
legal issues by only releasing source code, much like the ISO
distributes MP3 "demonstration" source code. Source code is
considered as speech, which may contain descriptions of patented
technology. Descriptions of patents are in the public
domain.

Several companies plan on releasing encoders based on LAME, and
they intend to obtain all the appropriate patent licenses. At least
one company is now shipping a fully licensed version of LAME with
their portable MP3 player.

Note that under German Patent Law, §11(1) a patent doesn't cover
private acts with non-industrial purposes. Probably interesting for
developers is that a patent doesn't cover acts with experimental
purposes, that aim at the object of the patented invention (§11(2)).


btw, I made thread that may be interesting to some 3rd party developers, link:
When and why you CANNOT use FFMPEG in your programs! (not directly related to this thread)

[sneaker_ger]

slightly off-topic:
MPEG LA’s AVC License Will Not Charge Royalties for Internet Video That Is Free to End Users Through Life of License (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en)

[zn]

slightly off-topic:
MPEG LA’s AVC License Will Not Charge Royalties for Internet Video That Is Free to End Users Through Life of License (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en)

which didn't change much, firefox and other browsers still required to pay to include h.264 decoding

webm/vp8/ogg needs to make it to html5 specs to resolve problem...

[lych_necross]

MPEG LA decided to place a permanent royalty moratorium on AVC/H.264! Read all about it here! (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/08/mpeg-la-counters-google-webm-with-permanent-royalty-moratorium.ars) A very interesting move. I wonder how it will affect FFMPEG and the like.

[mariush]

which didn't change much, firefox and other browsers still required to pay to include h.264 decoding

webm/vp8/ogg needs to make it to html5 specs to resolve problem...

... and, the moment your website has any kind of ad, it's no longer free and you have to pay (if the video is longer than 12 minutes i guess)

[sneaker_ger]

... and, the moment your website has any kind of ad, it's no longer free and you have to pay (if the video is longer than 12 minutes i guess)

The articles I've read speak about websites that are free for end users, so ads wouldn't require you to pay royalties as long as the user doesn't have to pay.

[Sharktooth]

in megui rev 1704: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1430360&postcount=1398
it should be enough but im not a lawyer...
please note the official megui package you download from SF, includes NO patented softwares.

[Guest]

If they say yes and you serve them the binaries from a US server, aren't you in need of licensing? I don't see how a "choice screen" changes anything.

[Sharktooth]

we should move the update server too

[mariush]

I guess it's plausible deniability ... it's sort of the users' responsibility to abide the law. They could use a US server as proxy (forced by the company the person works in for example) but the binaries would end up to him in a country where there are no patents/ not illegal.

[Guest]

I think you guess wrong; that's totally implausible. All MPEGLA would have to do is download updates from the US server and it would be all over.

[Sharktooth]

this is getting ridicolous... here's a list of softwares used by megui that cant be distributed in US, Japan and part of EU: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1430484&postcount=1400

[Sharktooth]

it is also not clear to me if license of use of a particular tech is per software or per user. can someone enlight me?
lets say i have a licensed mp3 encoder, should i also pay the license for a second different mp3 encoder? i mean, not the software license but the mp3 technology license.

[Disabled]

I can't speak for MP3, but with h264 the license is per software unit and not per user. If I buy two decoders, I have to pay two h264 licenses.
I still assume, its the same with every other license you have to buy, because how should the software distributor know if you already have a different software with a license for the format?

[Guest]

I can't speak for MP3, but with h264 the license is per software unit and not per user. If I buy two decoders, I have to pay two h264 licenses. That is wrong. There is no license for the end user. The supplier is licensed and pays the royalty. MPEGLA *does not* execute a license with end users.

[Disabled]

That is wrong. There is no license for the end user. The supplier is licensed and pays the royalty. MPEGLA *does not* execute a license with end users.
but with h264 the license is per software unit and not per user.
Ok, perhaps it was a bit unclear, but if you buy two products, both suppliers have to pay the license fee (or fall under the 100k limit). So indirectly you still pay two licenses.

[Guest]

I clarified in my first post in this thread:

*** EDIT: As seen below, the FFMPEG project is *not* in violation, to the extent that they do not supply binaries, because source code is not a "product". I am sorry for my incorrect statement about this (which originated from a not fully clear phone conversation with MPEGLA), and for any confusion/bad feelings it may have engendered. ***

After further consideration, since my original post, though arising from a miscommunication with MPEGLA and not any malicious intent, was the trigger for the ensuing discussion that got out of hand, I've asked Doom9 to rescind all the ensuing strikes, regardless of actual rule violations that occurred.

[Doom9]

We do have an internal process in place that should prevent issues like this from escalating. Unfortunately, the process broke down and ultimately, I'm responsable for that breakdown. On top of that, I'm afraid to admit that the strikes appeal email address has not been actively monitored for some time so even appeals that were made using the proper channels went ignored.

Therefore, I have rescinded all strikes that ensued from this issue (and ensuing suspensions), with the exception from one personal attack on a member of the moderation team - that I cannot tolerate no matter the circumstances.

I'd like to point out though that you shouldn't count on this happening in the future - the 'he started it' excuse does not fly with me, so if you have some grievances with a moderator, you really need to follow the established process (turn to another mod or contact myself or Swede).

[Doom9]

It is really sad to see how some people abuse good will. If you don't agree how this forum is being run, by all means, go someplace else. But you cannot dictate how this place should be run, and on top of that, you should have the decency to depart quietly and not leave a trail of destruction and unwanted advertisement for your own place.

[Dark Shikari]

We do have an internal process in place that should prevent issues like this from escalating.
"Escalating" isn't the problem. This shouldn't have happened to begin with.

The problem is that moderators are allowed to use their powers to intervene in issues related to their own personal activities. This means that a moderator can use their moderator powers to promote their commercial products, as was done here. As long as this isn't stopped, this problem will occur again and again: moderators should simply not be able to use their moderator powers in their own personal disputes.

As there doesn't seem to be any hope of this problem being resolved, I am not returning to Doom9. If you want me back, you will have to fix your forum. My suggestion is to start by swapping around the forum moderators so that they no longer moderate forums in which they have a vested commercial interest. But feel free to try some other method if you think it'll be easier or work better.

If at any point you believe you have resolved this issue or have a proposal for solving it, and would like me to return, you can email me, poke me on IRC, PM me at doom10, or whatever.

P.S. I don't want to run doom10. I'd rather doom9 be fixed. Also, stop deleting my posts.

[jj666]

The point is Neuron2 is a moderator and you're not and the rules are clear on what should and should not be handled on the public forum and where to use PM's. Instead of everybody starting slanging matches which soon get out of hand and are impossible to moderate, it would be easier to do like Doom9 suggested and send PM's to the appropriate people next time. I'm reading here a lot but not posting much - I don't have anything against Neuron2's moderation, he does a hell of a job just filtering out the rule #6 posts and he's always been very helpful with support issues on his products. As he's man enough to admit his mistake (see the edit in post 1), it should be easy enough to bury the hatchet.

Cheers,

-jj-

[Dark Shikari]

The point is Neuron2 is a moderator and you're not and the rules are clear on what should and should not be handled on the public forum and where to use PM's.Yes, and the moderator rules specifically say that what he did was against the rules -- and that what I did wasn't.

He posted in a his own thread thread, promoting his own proprietary software, that "anyone who discusses X will be struck". That banning of the topic X had no basis in the rules. Therefore, he was doing so only to protect his own interests. From the rules:

Conflict of interest

8) Moderators must not have a vested interest when using their moderator powers.

[MatLz]

Is possible to stay on topic ?
MPEGLA issues ?
Thx.

[Guest]

He posted in a his own thread thread, promoting his own proprietary software, that "anyone who discusses X will be struck". That banning of the topic X had no basis in the rules. That is incorrect. I instructed that the discussion be moved to a new thread, and this very thread is the result! I did not ban any discussion. Members are free to review the original thread to see that you misrepresent reality.

Furthermore, you are inventing direct quotes that were never made by me. I never posted "anyone who discusses X will be struck". This is a plain and simple fabrication.

[laserfan]

I don't want to run doom10. I'd rather doom9 be fixed.
I am no longer at Doom9. You will find me at x264's new home, doom10.org.
I wonder sir, here you are, with conflicting statements, in the very same posting(s). :confused:

If you want to "fix Doom9" why don't you carry on a PM with Doom9, rather than continue this very ugly public feuding?

[MatLz]

I found these links :

www.mpegla.com
and
www.ffmpeg.org

There a lot of interested informations !

:p

[Doom9]

Yes, and the moderator rules specifically say that what he did was against the rules -- and that what I did wasn't.In all fairness - that quote is from the latest revision of the moderator rules.. they were created after the fact. Prior to that, there were only informal rules and nothing about vested interests in software.

And MatLz is right, we really need to get back to topic.
I think it has been fairly well established that a source code only distribution is in no violation of any licensing contract. So ffmpeg is okay, x264 is okay and we could go on. We're also not the MPEGLA's enforcing arm.. so if you distribute binaries on your own, you're responsable for your own actions.

What I'm unsure about though is... say you distribute binaries.. noncommercially and in small numbers. Do you need to register with the MPEGLA even if the number if binaries you provide falls under the treshold? And if so, how do both parties ensure that the number of distributed binaries remains under that treshold over the years?

[Guest]

Yes, you must have a license from MPEGLA. As a licensee you are required to report at least annually. The license contains a clause giving MPEGLA the right to conduct an audit of your compliance, at your site if they so desire.

BTW, my signed license was submitted last week.

[Sharktooth]

What I'm unsure about though is... say you distribute binaries.. noncommercially and in small numbers. Do you need to register with the MPEGLA even if the number if binaries you provide falls under the treshold? And if so, how do both parties ensure that the number of distributed binaries remains under that treshold over the years?
regarding this topic, ill move the megui update server from us to somewhere else. i've already talked with some ppl and i will soon contact richard berg about the megui.org domain.

[Guest]

Is it possible to host some DGMPGDec binaries there also?

[Sharktooth]

sure, no problem. just give me an estimate of dgmpgdec monthly web traffic on your domain.

[Guest]

Now I'm thinking it's available already bundled with MEGUI, so that should be sufficient.

[mariush]

I would have offered to help you out with hosting (as I already help Mulder with updates for his apps) but I'll probably move my dedicated servers to US soon and I doubt you'd be interested then... I'd suggest you get megui.net while it's available just to be on the safe side... if you're interested but don't have funds i could get it for you and transfer it later on.

later edit: Sharktooh, I was just thinking about the whole ordeal with koepi.org which was lost and is not just a placeholder with ads, koepi.info being the proper site now. For me at least, koepi was the "reference" place to download xvid binaries...

[Sharktooth]

Now I'm thinking it's available already bundled with MEGUI, so that should be sufficient.
yes, unless newer versions...

@mariush: i dont really care about the domain. for example megui.org is not mine... however, if you want to register it i wont say no.

[Guest]

yes, unless newer versions... Presumably you would absorb them in a timely fashion if I notify you of them. New versions of DGMPGDec are infrequent nowadays.

[Sharktooth]

seems reasonable

[kieranrk]

You may be interested to hear that MPEG-LA will also ask you to list your distribution of H.264 decoders in the past (and pay fees if necessary) as part of your agreement. I assume you will declare the correct number of downloads for DGAVCDec.

[hank315]

You may be interested to hear that MPEG-LA will also ask you to list your distribution of H.264 decoders in the past (and pay fees if necessary) as part of your agreement.
How do you know that?

[linyx]

Members are free to review the original thread to see that you misrepresent reality.
Well, that depends on who controls reality, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I never posted "anyone who discusses X will be struck". This is a plain and simple fabrication.
With all due respect, with the extensive use of moderator power being employed here, how could anyone know what you did or didn't post?

[Guest]

I didn't post that. Are you calling me a liar?

[linyx]

I didn't post that. Are you calling me a liar?
I am simply saying you like to change history quite frequently, and subsequently it is impossible to tell what was or wasn't said. I am not calling you a liar. I am; however, saying you overuse your moderator power in the deletion and editing of threads and posts.

[Dark Shikari]

That is incorrect. I instructed that the discussion be moved to a new thread, and this very thread is the result! I did not ban any discussion. Members are free to review the original thread to see that you misrepresent reality.And then you struck multiple people for starting new threads anyways. :rolleyes: Don't try to lie your way out of this one; I have list of people who did exactly what you told them to do, and nevertheless you struck them anyways and deleted their threads.

This thread is the result after you got bored of striking people.I didn't post that. Are you calling me a liar?You said specifically that any post on the topic in that thread would be deleted -- using your moderator powers to keep negative posts out of a thread about your commercial software. Deletion of posts was, in all cases, followed up with a strike. Again, don't try to lie your way out of this one. We saved all your posts.

[Guest]

@linyx

You're welcome to your opinions, but in this specific case, put up or shut up. If I ask Doom9 to review the edits on that thread and he states that I never posted what DS claimed I did and which you questioned, will you apologize for casting doubt on my credibility in this case?

[Guest]

And then you struck multiple people for starting new threads anyways. That is not correct. They were struck for insults and rule 3/17 violations.

This thread is the result after you got bored of striking people. That is not correct. The strikes to other people were issued after this thread was created.

[Dark Shikari]

That is not correct. The strikes to other people were issued after this thread was created.That is a lie. I have logs on IRC of people posting threads specifically about the relevant topic. They then said you deleted their posts and struck them. Roughly 3-5 people tried this. All had their threads deleted and struck. None posted insults. All attempted civil discussion of the topic.That is not correct. They were struck for insults and rule 3/17 violations.We all know that you strike people for whatever you want, regardless of what they actually did. What you "struck people for" is a meaningless formality.

"Discussion of something related to neuron2" == "discussion of moderation" == "you can ban us whenever you want".I wonder sir, here you are, with conflicting statements, in the very same posting(s). :confused:Note how I am not posting outside this thread.If you want to "fix Doom9" why don't you carry on a PM with Doom9, rather than continue this very ugly public feuding?I already did. If he wants to stop neuron2, he can do so right now with no debate. If he doesn't, that's his fault, not mine.

[Guest]

I answer to Doom9. He has all the data he needs to determine if I have done anything untoward. I'm still a moderator, so I suppose he doesn't agree with you.

I apologized several times for my mistake in confusing binary/source distribution. Can't you let it go?

[stax76]

@neuron2

Does that mean all edits and deleted posts on every thread can be examined by the admin? Is there a time limit the information is kept?

[Dark Shikari]

I apologized several times for my mistake in confusing binary/source distribution. Can't you let it go?See? You still don't understand a thing.

I don't blame you for that confusion. Everyone makes mistakes. From the beginning, that's never been the problem I had.

The problem is that you are using moderator powers to further your own personal interests and opinions.

Apologize for that, and promise to never again use your moderator powers in a thread where you have any personal interest, and I will accept.

[Guest]

@stax76

You'll have to ask Doom9/Swede about what the admins can see. As a simple mod, I can see my deletion and edit histories so I would assume they can as well.

Posts and threads can be soft or hard deleted. We are instructed to do only soft deletes although some obvious spam from new posters is sometimes hard deleted (e.g., wow gold spam). I do not know if the admins can see a trail of hard deletes.

I do not know how long Swede maintains logs, but these recent threads certainly still have visible logs.

Finally, what may look like a hard delete to a normal user may actually be a soft one, and it may also have a copy in the Thread Moderation forum that is not visible to normal users.

[Guest]

The problem is that you are using moderator powers to further your own personal interests and opinions. That is incorrect. I do not do that and I resent your suggestion that I do.

As I explained elsewhere, the licensing issue was actually started by BetaBoy, with whom you have a commercial relationship. My mistake was only being uninformed on the source/binary distinction.

[Dark Shikari]

That is incorrect. I do not do that and I resent your suggestion that I do.Let us prove so then.

1. You have a personal interest in DGAVCDecNV and related tools.

2. Therefore, you have a personal interest in a thread about DGAVCDecNV.

3. You used your moderator powers to ban me for posting in that thread.

Therefore, you used your moderator powers in a thread where you had a personal interest.

QED

Accept that you made a mistake, apologize for it, and promise not to do it again. Find another moderator to handle threads where you have a personal interest. This isn't that difficult and isn't the end of the world. But until you do, I, along with an increasing number of Doom9 community members, will be elsewhere.

[Guest]

I have already addressed the points of your argument, and I have already placed everything in Doom9's hands. I have no reason to apologize for anything beyond the mistake I have already acknowledged, and I have no intention of doing so.

Can you please take this issue to PM with Doom9, or do you think that you have special privilege to violate multiple forum rules?

[Dark Shikari]

I have already addressed the points of your argument, and I have already placed everything in Doom9's hands. I have no reason to apologize for anything beyond the mistake I have already acknowledged, and I have no intention of doing so.Then this will be my last post; x264 will permanently leave Doom9.

Doom9 will regret kicking out free software from its community.

[Guest]

So back on topic...

I have reviewed the MPEGLA license and don't see any clauses about distributions prior to the signing of the agreement.

Regarding diavc.ax used in DGAVCDecDI, I no longer include it in the zip, users have to request it by mail. This allows me to count the number of distributions. I couldn't have done that if it was included in the freely downloadable DGAVCDecDI.

[linyx]

If I ask Doom9 to review the edits on that thread and he states that I never posted what DS claimed I did and which you questioned, will you apologize for casting doubt on my credibility in this case?
In that single case, sure. Don't bother wasting his or your time though, I'll be departing from Doom9 as well.

:thanks: for the excellent two and a half years, Doom9, farewell.

[MatLz]

Then this will be my last post; x264 will permanently leave Doom9.

Doom9 will regret kicking out free software from its community.Even if you are a great dev, you "aren't" x264. x264 isn't yours and never won't.
It is also a community and a good leader would never act and speak as you did.
That is one of the reasons I never liked you.

I permit myself to be oot too because it's your last megalomaniac post.

Good way though.

[Midzuki]

Well, now I feel like "confessing" that I have always admired Gabest, Alexander Noe, akupenguin, and Dark Shikari. :) As for the developers that I do not admire... well, I think everybody already knows who they are. ;)

[Sharktooth]

this is getting OT and personal. now, the involved ppl already stated their final position. so please stop adding OT comments.
frankly speaking ppl interested in how licensing works doesnt care of those things.
those are admins problems and should be fixed by them. ofcourse, if you want to discuss that you're free to do it elsewhere but not on this thread.
Thanks.

back on topic. does the MPEG-LA talks about distribution of software without specifying if it does work or not?
i mean, can a patented software that requires a key or something to work be distributed? coz if that's the case, you can exactly know how many working copies are being distributed...

[Guest]

does the MPEG-LA talks about distribution of software without specifying if it does work or not? No. If the patent is embodied that would require licensing.

EDIT: This is wrong, see below.

i mean, can a patented software that requires a key or something to work be distributed? coz if that's the case, you can exactly know how many working copies are being distributed... I don't think requiring a key changes anything. But even if it did, in my case that wouldn't help because my key covers all my tools and I can't just count how many keys I have issued to know how many people I have distributed diavc.ax to. Down the road, the diavc.ax will come directly from DiAVC, but I want to retain the option to distribute it, so I have signed the MPEGLA license. DiAVC is distributed in China, where the MPEGLA patents are not enforceable, and for which licensing is therefore not required.

[Sharktooth]

and... if the binary file is encrypted?
i mean, if i distribute a zipped file that contains a software but the zip is encrypted and requires a password to extract the file.
technically that "binary" is not executable unless you give the user a password do decrypt it (im talking about unique passwords for each zip archive)

[Guest]

Checking my license agreement right now...

[Guest]

Following is the clause:

3.4 The Payment of Running Royalties Upon the Sale of AVC Codecs Sold in an
Encrypted, Disabled, or Otherwise Unusable Form (for purposes of this
Section 3.4, collectively “Encrypted Products”).
3.4.1 Royalties pursuant to this Article 3 are payable upon the Sale of
Encrypted Products in which the AVC functionality of the Encrypted
Product is encrypted, disabled or otherwise unusable only:
3.4.1.1 upon the distribution of a key or other instrumentality
allowing the Encrypted Product to be used to decode and/or
encode bit streams compliant with the AVC Standard; or
3.4.1.2 if the encryption, disablement or other method employed to
prevent use of the Encrypted Product is generally breached;
royalties for all such Encrypted Products Sold shall
immediately become payable pursuant to Article 3; or
3.4.1.3 if Licensee fails to take reasonable steps to insure that the
AVC functionality is encrypted, disabled or otherwise
unusable, royalties for all such Encrypted Products Sold
shall immediately become payable pursuant to Article 3.

Since DiAVC controls the key to unlock diavc.ax, and I have no knowledge or control of that, I have to assume that any binaries I distribute are or will become usable.

[Sharktooth]

interesting