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.