H264/AVC licence

shlezman · 14th September 2003, 06:58

http://www.vialicensing.com/developm...nse.terms.html

This is the first draft of the AVC/H.264 licensing terms. The hope for a free baseline turns out to be nothing but a dream.
Something (maybe my paranoia) tells me that M$ is in someway behind this decision, cause making the baseline free will crush the WMV9.

Other then that,the fees are reasonable and very similar to MPEG4

Sirber · 14th September 2003, 07:14

hum... that sucks. We'll have to relay on RV9 and rududu then

deXtoRious · 14th September 2003, 10:31

I think I didn't understand that fully

Did they mean that anyone can get the SDK, write the program and pay royalties only for distribution?

shlezman · 14th September 2003, 10:56

"Implementation providers (companies providing chipsets, board assemblies other than to end users, firmware code, software development kits, reference design hardware, and similar non-end-user products) are not required to execute a license"

You can develop for free, when you distribute the codecs, you'll have to pay per codec (software/hardware/encoder/decoder).

@Siber - Sorry but I couldnt read through all the 1 zilion licences that RN require you to agree with, but I suspect that distributing RV isnt free (understatement). Sure that backing up your personal DVD's will probably will not get the RN layers at your door, unless you make money out of that

Tommy Carrot · 14th September 2003, 14:43

Then baseline profile makes no sense, because main profile is much more powerful, and we should pay for both.

deXtoRious · 14th September 2003, 16:15

Quote:

You can develop for free, when you distribute the codecs, you'll have to pay per codec (software/hardware/encoder/decoder).

Wonderful! So I can create free programs!

temporance · 14th September 2003, 18:31

> Wonderful! So I can create free programs!

Yes, but you can never share them with anyone unless you pay!

deXtoRious · 14th September 2003, 19:10

Well, let's assume, you're all my beta testers, OK?

Besides, those people (mostly in Latvia and Russia) who I want to distribute this to, don't really care about irrelevant things like legal programs

Neo Neko · 14th September 2003, 21:06

Distribution concerns binaries. Well at least in general terms. So the loophole here would be to provide code that is simple to compile. Better yet that is simple to compile with free compilers like GCC. All requirements and resources linked. The compiler free. Anyone can make their own binaries without ever having to distribute anything but the code(the idea) and not the product itself.

deXtoRious · 14th September 2003, 22:07

Is it allowed to, let's say, e-mail binaries (non-publicly) to beta testers?

shlezman · 15th September 2003, 07:00

Another idea is to distribute an install package that includes sources and compiler, which compiles the sources in install time, I wonder if this trick will work, I'll have to ask my lawyer

P.S.
This licensing issue is also valid to xvid distribution.

temporance · 15th September 2003, 07:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Distribution concerns binaries. Well at least in general terms. So the loophole here would be to provide code that is simple to compile. Better yet that is simple to compile with free compilers like GCC. All requirements and resources linked. The compiler free. Anyone can make their own binaries without ever having to distribute anything but the code(the idea) and not the product itself.

If we take this idea too far and it gets too easy to compile a patent-ridden piece of software, then we may soon see source-only infringement suits. When this happens, the rule-of-thumb "source is OK" will no longer be true and it will be a sad day for open-source software.

Quote:

Originally posted by deXtoRious
Is it allowed to, let's say, e-mail binaries (non-publicly) to beta testers?

In the eyes of the law, it doesn't make any difference whether the distribution is public or private. In practice though, who's going to know?

14th September 2003, 06:58	#1 \| Link
shlezman Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 69	H264/AVC licence http://www.vialicensing.com/developm...nse.terms.html This is the first draft of the AVC/H.264 licensing terms. The hope for a free baseline turns out to be nothing but a dream. Something (maybe my paranoia) tells me that M$ is in someway behind this decision, cause making the baseline free will crush the WMV9. Other then that,the fees are reasonable and very similar to MPEG4

14th September 2003, 07:14	#2 \| Link
Sirber retired developer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 8,978	hum... that sucks. We'll have to relay on RV9 and rududu then __________________ Detritus Software

14th September 2003, 21:06	#9 \| Link
Neo Neko Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Posts: 1,812	Distribution concerns binaries. Well at least in general terms. So the loophole here would be to provide code that is simple to compile. Better yet that is simple to compile with free compilers like GCC. All requirements and resources linked. The compiler free. Anyone can make their own binaries without ever having to distribute anything but the code(the idea) and not the product itself. __________________ Opensource will not take over the world. But it will sure improve the lives of most of it! _______________________________________________ Inkscape - Scallable Vector Graphics for everyone. The GIMP - Free raster graphics and photo editing software. Planeshift - Free 3D MMORPG. Cause everyone needs some fun.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14th September 2003, 10:31	#3 \| Link
deXtoRious Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Riga, Latvia Posts: 192	I think I didn't understand that fully Did they mean that anyone can get the SDK, write the program and pay royalties only for distribution?

14th September 2003, 10:56	#4 \| Link
shlezman Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 69	"Implementation providers (companies providing chipsets, board assemblies other than to end users, firmware code, software development kits, reference design hardware, and similar non-end-user products) are not required to execute a license" You can develop for free, when you distribute the codecs, you'll have to pay per codec (software/hardware/encoder/decoder). @Siber - Sorry but I couldnt read through all the 1 zilion licences that RN require you to agree with, but I suspect that distributing RV isnt free (understatement). Sure that backing up your personal DVD's will probably will not get the RN layers at your door, unless you make money out of that

14th September 2003, 14:43	#5 \| Link
Tommy Carrot Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 863	Then baseline profile makes no sense, because main profile is much more powerful, and we should pay for both.

14th September 2003, 18:31	#7 \| Link
temporance Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 486	> Wonderful! So I can create free programs! Yes, but you can never share them with anyone unless you pay!

14th September 2003, 19:10	#8 \| Link
deXtoRious Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Riga, Latvia Posts: 192	Well, let's assume, you're all my beta testers, OK? Besides, those people (mostly in Latvia and Russia) who I want to distribute this to, don't really care about irrelevant things like legal programs

14th September 2003, 22:07	#10 \| Link
deXtoRious Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Riga, Latvia Posts: 192	Is it allowed to, let's say, e-mail binaries (non-publicly) to beta testers?

15th September 2003, 07:00	#11 \| Link
shlezman Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 69	Another idea is to distribute an install package that includes sources and compiler, which compiles the sources in install time, I wonder if this trick will work, I'll have to ask my lawyer P.S. This licensing issue is also valid to xvid distribution.