Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
12th June 2008, 20:44 | #2 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
The software itself is of course free software; since it is released under the GPL it has no restrictions on use, only on distribution, for which you must abide by the terms of the GPL (not at all difficult).
However, patents are still an issue; for licensing them, talk to the MPEG-LA. Facebook did it, my company (Avail) did it, so can you. Its quite cheap, too, from what I've heard.
__________________
Follow x264 development progress | akupenguin quotes | x264 git status ffmpeg and x264-related consulting/coding contracts | Doom10 Last edited by Dark Shikari; 12th June 2008 at 20:49. |
12th June 2008, 20:47 | #3 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
x264 is OpenSource software, released under the terms of the GPL.
So as long as you don't break any of the GPL restrictions, you can use it for free and for any purpose (included commercial purposes). Nevertheless when doing commercial stuff, you might have to pay patenting fees to the owners of the AVC/H.264 patents...
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
13th June 2008, 00:22 | #4 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,075
|
A patent pool license from mpeg-la will constitute due diligence in trying to make legal use of x264.
Legal distribution of x264 is completely impossible though, because only patents which allow free use in any GPL'd software are GPL compatible ... and if you think GPL'd software is covered by patents which don't allow that you can't distribute the software. |
13th June 2008, 00:37 | #5 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Isn't that only true of GPLv3? x264 uses GPLv2. If what you were saying was the case, ffmpeg couldn't be legally distributed, which is of course absurd because its used in a number of extremely high-profile commercial applications.
|
13th June 2008, 01:37 | #7 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,075
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by MfA; 13th June 2008 at 06:02. |
||
13th June 2008, 01:45 | #8 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
And I'd leave this one up to the lawyers. |
|
13th June 2008, 10:27 | #10 | Link | |
L.A.M.E. developer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris - France
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
We have the exact same "issue" with LGPL, and that does not prevent companies from buying mp3 patents licenses in order to redistribute Lame binaries. It is because the copyright holders don't object to it. (and that's why I would not want to transfer my own copyright to the FSF, which would then want to enforce this specific license clause) |
|
|
|