FFMPEG violate MPEGLA licensing?

[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