selling a/v streams created by GPL encoders

[bond]

from a legal point of view you are not allowed to use an encoder, like the avc encoder from ateme, for creating files that you later on sell
if you want to do this you need to get the permission to do this from ateme

now there are encoders being spread under the gpl and i wondered whether the gpl grants the right to sell files produced by gpl encoders
or if the gpl doesnt grant this (as it simply doesnt cover this case) and therefore you need to ask the author of the encoder for permission (following normal law)

what do you guys think?

[Doom9]

A work created with is not a work derived from as defined under the GPL. You can use free tools for commercial purposes all you want.. the GPL just limites what you can do if you re-use the code, there are no limitations placed upon whatever is created by the regular use of any tool. In fact, any additional limitations would be in conflict with the GPL.
Why would you need to ask ateme if you're using their encoder to create files that you're going to spread? All you need to make sure is that you pay the necessary MPEG licensing fees and that you properly license the content from the copyright holder. Imagine if you couldn't use Word to write a concept document for a customer, Visual Studio's use would be limited to creating applications that you use for yourself, etc.

Part of the freedom the GPL grants includes the right to use the program any way you like to create anything you like. Imagine all the companies using Linux.. they couldn't do that if GPL software cannot be used for whatever purpose you like.

[bond]

A work created with is not a work derived from as defined under the GPL. You can use free tools for commercial purposes all you want.. the GPL just limites what you can do if you re-use the code, there are no limitations placed upon whatever is created by the regular use of any tool.yeah this, and the example you brought make sense, still i am wondering what part of the gpl allows this? can you quote the part of the gpl which explicitely allows the useage "for commercial purposes all you want"?

i mean something that comes close to this is this:
This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).1) the gpl says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License" which would indicate that the gpl isnt useable for the case of selling content produced by a program
2) "The act of running the Program is not restricted" alone would say that you can do whatever you want with the program, but in the context of the other sentences surrounding it, it might also simply mean "the gpl doesnt restrict the act of running the program, but it also doesnt allow doing anything you want as the gpl only covers copying, distribution and modification of the program and derived programs"
3) "the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)" tells me that this doesnt apply to video streams created by a gpl program


maybe i have overlooked another part of the gpl which allows the useage of the content produced by a gpl tool for everything you want?


Why would you need to ask ateme if you're using their encoder to create files that you're going to spread?well i cant quote the law for every country, but i assume that eg sony cant simply buy a copy of nero recode2 at amazon and than use this tool for encoding the avc streams for all the hd dvds its going to produce without asking for the permission of the rightsholder(s) on nero recode2

i know i am totally exaggerating with that example ;)

[virus]

Personally, I believe there are no restrictions on usage. Otherwise thousands of firms (which use GPL'ed software internally) and their lawyers would be just wrong... that can't be. Man, even using gcc to build a program and then selling the program would require paying fees or be forbidden, according to bond's reasoning. Also, most links I've googled seem to confirm there are no restrictions on usage (see, for example, here (http://www.iusmentis.com/computerprograms/licenses/choosing/)).

However, I don't see a clear sentence about "usage" on the GPLv2 license text itself, except the one bond has quoted ("The act of running the Program is not restricted"); the GPL deals with copies, modifications and distribution, after all.
Nor the issue is much talked about at gnu.org, so someone with a legal background maybe can explain what exactly entitles for "fully free usage for any purpose" of GPL'ed software. I believe this "free usage" philosophy fits GPL's purposes pretty well, it's just not clear to me whether the sentence above about running a program already covers all cases, while at the same time not allowing to place further changes to the usage policy for the licensed software - again, "usage" not "copies, modifications and distribution".

Can we made a GPL'ed software with further restrictions on usage - or maybe dual licensing is required in that case? What happens if no explicit provisions are made for limiting the usage - as it is with the vast majority of GPL'ed programs?

[bond]

Personally, I believe there are no restrictions on usage. Otherwise thousands of firms (which use GPL'ed software internally) and their lawyers would be just wrong... that can't be.well you have to be careful. my question was not regarding whether you can use gpl software, but whether you are allowed to _sell_ _content produced by the gpl software_ without the permission of the author of the gpl software


lets structure this:

in the beginnging there are two possibilities:
1) national law allows by default the useage of tools for everything you want (unless the tool creator explicitely prohibits that).
so to say you can use word for writing documents you sell without needing a permission of m$ for using the tool for this. You can use nero recode2 for encoding avc streams for millions of hddvds you are going to sell without needing nero's permission aso...
in this case there is no need for the gpl to give you that right as national law gives it to you

2) if thats not the case you are obviously not allowed to do this and the gpl comes into play
regarding the gpl there are again two possibilities:

A) the gpl makes clear that you can use a gpl tool for creating content you can sell or do whatever you want with
so to say national law didnt you give you the right, but the tool author did (via the gpl)

B) the gpl doesnt do this, as it only deals with copying, distribution and modification of the program and derived programs and NOT with content derived from the program
in this case, assuming that 1) isnt true, you would need the permission of the tool author

[Doom9]

well i cant quote the law for every country, but i assume that eg sony cant simply buy a copy of nero recode2 at amazon and than use this tool for encoding the avc streams for all the hd dvds its going to produce without asking for the permission of the rightsholder(s) on nero recode2Unless you buy the program under a license that would require this, there's no limitation upon the use of the output. There are examples where you can get a license for internal use (normally for free or a very small fee) and a license that allows redistribution. This is often used by 3rd party components for a programming environment.. if you don't want to spend time writing your own graphical component to mimic windows explorer for instance, you can buy one, and normally there are different licenses for different uses. But unless the license specifically mentions redistribution, you're free to do what you want under the general copyright statutes that apply in your country.

[virus]

my question was not regarding whether you can use gpl software, but whether you are allowed to _sell_ _content produced by the gpl software_ without the permission of the author of the gpl software
well, I've already given the example of gcc. gcc can be used to compile programs. those programs can be sold. And gcc is licensed via a straight GPLv2 license like all GNU tools. And no, I've never seen any company pay fees for building software with gcc. So my point still holds: either what you claim is not true, or all lawyers working for all those firms are doing something totally wrong allowing their company to use gcc.

I believe the solution is in the interpretation of the sentence "The act of running the Program is not restricted". If that means that you're allowed to do what you want with the program, then commercial usage (= selling the program, or selling the content produced by the program) is also completely unrestricted. In the case of selling the program, it's certainly so, as you may see here (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney).
In fact, allowing adoption of the GPL for commercial usage is one of the goals of the license itself, as stated clearly here (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html). And I guess the lawyers who worked on the GPL's text know what they were doing.

[wmansir]

Also from the GNU definition of "Free Software" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html):

``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.


Also if you look at the GNU comments on various licenses (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#Introduction), several of the licenses are considered non-free because they restrict commercial use of the program.

[random asshat]

In my understanding, GPL'd software requires that if you modify the code
of a piece of software, and attempt to distribute or sell that modification,
you must return your changes to the commons.

For instance, If you modify the Apache webserver to suit your needs,
you are not required to share your changes to the code until
you try to distribute the "modified code" as part of a package,
commercial or otherwise.

I have never heard anyone make the assertation that because your
content is served from an Apache webserver, or your images were
created with GIMP, that your creations now belong to the commons.

I will qualify my statements by saying IANAL and this is strictly my
interpretation as to the intent and wording of the GPL license.

[Mug Funky]

AFAIK commercial use is fine so long as patents are covered.

however, it becomes a grey area with things such as xvid or ffmpeg - patent fees haven't been paid by the developers and as far as i know that means working programs are not allowed to be distributed. however, the user of such a program may have covered the patent fees already... where does that leave them if they are using a "shady" program but not avoiding any licensing fees? this is something i'd like to know, to be honest, as there's some very good mpeg-2 encoders available for free, but whose developers have not paid patent fees.

of course, in the DVD world there's other shady things that are overlooked. for instance, you can license the rights for, say, ADV's english subtitles for some anime. how do they get the materials to you? they send a (wrong region) CSS'd DVD and tell you to rip the subs. to do that you are breaking the DMCA/FTA/whatever, and using a program that's been killed by macrovision (DVD Decrypter). however, the licensors are happy :)

[Doom9]

I'm pretty sure google (that what this is all about.. google uses x264 and co for their video service) is paying the necessary patent fees.

[Mug Funky]

okay. so then it doesn't matter what implementation is used so long as the fees are paid? that's cool.