legally using XviD for commercial purposes...

[plonk420]

is there an FAQ or some kind of information on this? the place i'm interning is using that vomit-inducing Quicktime Sorenson (3?) or MPEG4, neither of which i've had much luck with producing ANYTHING remotely decent as i did with Xvid/VP6 at low/extremely low bitrates.

i did a search for legal (but didn't know what else i could search for) and looked at the Xvid FAQ, but didn't see anything of use...

would it involve paying the MPEG(-4) consortium/cartel? or...?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by plonk420
is there an FAQ or some kind of information on this? the place i'm interning is using that vomit-inducing Quicktime Sorenson (3?) or MPEG4, neither of which i've had much luck with producing ANYTHING remotely decent as i did with Xvid/VP6 at low/extremely low bitrates.

i did a search for legal (but didn't know what else i could search for) and looked at the Xvid FAQ, but didn't see anything of use...

would it involve paying the MPEG(-4) consortium/cartel? or...?

Yes there needs to be a central repository organised for those interested in using Xvid commercially. If such thing could be done.

Theoretically it is very possible. You as a commercial entity would be responsible for licensing encoder binaries with the MPEG-LA. And licensing for the streams and streaming. The real question is. What is the minimum amount of encoders they are willing to license? That would be the best and morraly correct way.

Another option would be to purchase a license for a commercial MPEG4 codec etc and then use Xvid binaries instead. Ultimatly you would not likely be able to hide that fact though. Because even though the streams are compatable there will likely be small insignificant bitstream differences that could fingerprint a general codec. But still you would have in principle paid your license. But the Xvid group would not be recognised. And that is IMHO wrong.

It would be nice to have a repository of such information for people which to my knowledge has yet to be done.

[CruNcher]

yeah i thought about that myself a list with companies or persons including Genre that useing XviD allready commercial for now i only know 1 tough

Adult:
-------
Deluxe Pass, LLC (www.deluxepass.com)

[sysKin]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Another option would be to purchase a license for a commercial MPEG4 codec etc and then use Xvid binaries instead. Ultimatly you would not likely be able to hide that fact though.Yes but does that metter? If you own a licence for mpeg-4 encoder (which is mostly a licence to use its patented technologies) then as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter which particular product you use, as long as you are using one product (if you're using both divx5 and xvid, you need two licences. if only xvid, one is enough, but IMHO it can be the one you obtained when you downloaded divx5).

In general, mpeg-la does not cover encoders which are not *sold*. If encoder is not sold, you can't obtain a licence to use it, because mpeg-la does not offer such licence.
At the other hand, if xvid was sold (which is OK, as long as everything in gnu/gpl is followed) then the seller is able to sell you a limited number of encoders without paying any fees. I don't remember the exact number right now.

I'm pretty sure lawyers can use this rule to arrange you selling yourself an encoder.

Radek

[plonk420]

so, once the lawyer or legal counsul arrages for you to sell yourself a copy, it doesn't really matter who's binary you use? (i don't feel like compiling it myself) i guess the difficult part would be the legal entanglings, which i doubt my place of internship would even want to mess with. hopefully this will be made easier some day, as xvid is such an amazing implementation of MPEG4 video... -____-

[crusty]

s there an FAQ or some kind of information on this?

I'd be more than happy to include any information about this in my FAQ.
:cool:

[MfA]

It all depends on what you mean by use, if mean to put it in some type of multimedia playback device Id say forget about it IF you want to live by the letter of the law.

Basically as long as there is a country where the patents are valid and where distribution under the GPL is not prohibited by the original copyright holders, the GPL doesnt grant you the right to distribute at all (if you know that recipients of the source code are not granted the rights described by the GPL then you arent allowed to distribute). Even if the geographic restrictions are correct you would still be stuck with a product for which you had no valid license to distribute in large parts of the world.

Of course most people including the major xvid copyright holders pick and choose what pieces of the GPL they find important ... so as long as you offer source code downloads for xvid and any of the changes you made with the product you will probably be safe.

Patent encumbered software released under the GPL relies a lot on implicit additional rights granted by the copyright owners, in addition to what is in the GPL.

[temporance]

Of course most people including the major xvid copyright holders pick and choose what pieces of the GPL they find important ... so as long as you offer source code downloads for xvid and any of the changes you made with the product you will probably be safe.Yes, you are probably safe w.r.t the GPL. I don't mean to be nasty to the xvid guys, but you could probably infringe GPL to death and they'd never sue you. Lawyers cost money and unless it's a nice test case for the FSF, probably no-one would want to risk their personal finance on upholding xvid's honor. The bad publicity though would be another thing altogether: your product would be hated by nerds the world over as soon as the story hits slashdot.

Mess with MPEG-LA though, and you are messing with the big boys. They would not be happy if they grant a license for your product, but you release the source for unrestricted use anywhere (as you have to if you use GPL). At best, they'd revoke your MPEG-4 license. At worse, your office would be crawling with lawyers (and maybe even police).

[riggits]

if you live in the US, you are legally bound to whatever (ridiculous) restrictions the patent owners inflict.

In countries with greater freedoms, you can legally use XviD for whichever purposes you deem desirable.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by temporance

Mess with MPEG-LA though, and you are messing with the big boys. They would not be happy if they grant a license for your product, but you release the source for unrestricted use anywhere (as you have to if you use GPL). At best, they'd revoke your MPEG-4 license. At worse, your office would be crawling with lawyers (and maybe even police).

Actually the MPEG-LA places no restriction on the sources to any MPEG4 implementation. As such you are free and in fact obligated to provide access to the source if you were to distribute Xvid. It only gets sticky when you were to try and sell Xvid binaries and try to get the MPEG-LA to give you an extremely small number of licenses. So if someone was so inclined it should be possible for them to form an XXN to Divx's DXN to mass license and distribute Xvid binaries to the masses. The only stipulation that the source be provided. What an interesting concept.

Ofcourse the ultimate distro method would be to package the Xvid sources with a self contained and automated compile environment. It is not needed under Linux, BSD, or Mac since you can often just "make" them. But since it is hard to have a GCC make equivalent under Windows.

[Nic]

I cant remember the exact spec now, but I don't think you have to have to pay any royalties until you sell something like over 50,000 encoders...That's from memory though, so could be wrong (from a conference in San Francisco a year ago when the MPEG-LA spoke there)

-Nic

edit: Just checked, that is right. Check page 10 of the Powerpoint doc on the www.mpegla.com MPEG-4 Visual site.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Nic
....I don't think you have to have to pay any royalties until you sell something like over 50,000 encodersJust checked, that is right... Check page 10 of the Powerpoint doc on the www.mpegla.com MPEG-4 Visual site. Interesting. What would happen if you sold everything else, but gave the encoder away instead!

You know, like M$ says it does with Internet Explorer, MediaPlayer 9 etc....

Just wondering!

Cheers

[MfA]

Doesnt really matter, you still need a license from them ... and that license is non transferrable.

[LigH]

So, under which circumstances may someone use XviD for creating videos, shipping those videos (e.g. game story sequences), and installing an XviD decoder with their product? I wonder if this is possible with binary builds (e.g. Koepi's are "for testing purposes only"), probably they would have to compile their own codec/filter builds from the official sources, but may not include them into a stand-alone player without releasing its sources due to the GPL... Oh, you may have to read and think about everything twice, or more times.

Indeed, I would prefer XviD videos over Bink's.

[bond]

hm i think for me this is pretty clear:

if you want to use xvid commercially you will have to:
1) pay mpeg-4 video encoder licenses and
2)
a) pay the copyright holders of xvid to be allowed to use their work or
b) release the tool under gpl too if xvid is fix inbuilt, if there is a plugin system only the plugin needs to be gpl

[hellgauss]

Just a few question....

1)
I've written a software which encodes dvd using Koepi xvid builds (quite similar to autoGK). The xvid binary's (exe) is included in my software, and the user is asked for xvid installation the first time my software is started. Then my software creates a job for virtualdubmod (included in my software) and runs it using windows shell (command line).

Do i have to release my software under GPL? I'm not using xvid or virtualdubmod as a dll, but i'm not sure that running it using command line is the same. I simply distribute xvid and VDM (i also give info for source download) and launch them using windows shell.


2)I'm planning to write a similar software to convert DV to xvid avi in the same way, and sell it to photo shops in my country, to put holidays video on a cd. Do I have to pay xvid or MPEG-4 licenses (i live in Italy)?

thanks, and sorry for bad English....

[LigH]

If your tool does not rely on the sources of a GPL project (means: fortunately it supports it, but it still may work without it), then you don't need to apply the GPL on your tool.

[sysKin]

Originally posted by hellgauss
[B]1)
I've written a software which encodes dvd using Koepi xvid builds (quite similar to autoGK). The xvid binary's (exe) is included in my software, and the user is asked for xvid installation the first time my software is started. Then my software creates a job for virtualdubmod (included in my software) and runs it using windows shell (command line).
Do i have to release my software under GPL? I'm not using xvid or virtualdubmod as a dll, but i'm not sure that running it using command line is the same. I simply distribute xvid and VDM (i also give info for source download) and launch them using windows shell.
Yes. You cannot distribute non-gpl-ed program and gpl-ed program together. You can distribute them separately.

As far as I can tell you can make a non-gple-ed program that will create vdubmod's job files, you just can't distribute them together.
2)I'm planning to write a similar software to convert DV to xvid avi in the same way, and sell it to photo shops in my country, to put holidays video on a cd. Do I have to pay xvid or MPEG-4 licenses (i live in Italy)?If you want to distribute XviD then yes, although it's (at best) unclear how you can do this. MPEG-LA does not offer the licence you need.

Radek

[hellgauss]

thanks for reply! I will distribute my source code as soon as possible.
But i have a question: why len0x doesn't distribute source code for autogk?

tnx
HG

[Nic]

"Yes. You cannot distribute non-gpl-ed program and gpl-ed program together."

Is that definitely the case Radek? Not that im questioning you, as I dont know myself, but how 100% sure are you on that?

@hellgauss: I don't know your prog, but from what you've stated, I dont think it needs to be GPL...But it's always good for the community if you decide to do it :)

-Nic

[sysKin]

Originally posted by Nic
"Yes. You cannot distribute non-gpl-ed program and gpl-ed program together."

Is that definitely the case Radek? Not that im questioning you, as I dont know myself, but how 100% sure are you on that?I can't be sure of course, I am not a lawyer. This is how I understand it - I checked it quite recently. The GPL licence is about distribution, and the FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation)says that if a product uses a gpl-ed program as its part, it's a derived work. If xvid was a part of an installation package, it *looks* like it's a part of the new product IMHO. As I said, I am not an expert.

Anyway, it is perfectly easy just to let people download two packages (proggy as one and vdubmod+xvid as the other), or make two installers on one CD (which is ok, as explained in that FAQ).

[hellgauss]

"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

It's my case!
I use system() function to call vdm, so i use windows to call VDM.
I send info to VDM using a job.txt file, and to xvid with the MIME string. But I don't think this is a complex internal data structure. It's only a mix of parameters.

[sysKin]

Originally posted by hellgauss
"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

It's my case!
I use system() function to call vdm, so i use windows to call VDM.
I send info to VDM using a job.txt file, and to xvid with the MIME string. But I don't think this is a complex internal data structure. It's only a mix of parameters. Yup, that's what I meant - you can use virtualdub and xvid in such way, it's absolutely OK. I only meant distributing them in one installer, which *perhaps* is also OK, I really can't tell.

Please take a look at how LonelyCatGames releases their (commercial) proggy (http://www.lonelycatgames.com/mobile/smartmovie/smartmovie.html) that encodes video for mobile phones: the program itself is commercial, the encoder is a modified xvid - they have two download links.

Anyway, it would be nice if someone smarter than me actually explained how it should be...

Radek

[PhrostByte]

You can distribute GPL and non-GPL programs together, but you need to have the source to the GPL part readily available. If you are distributing on a CD, it's probably a good idea to include the source in a seperate zip or tar.gz.

So long as the GPL and non-GPL code never touch eachother, you can interop as much as you want. Ie, compiling gpl.c and non-gpl.c into an exe together is illegal, but compiling gpl.c into gpl.dll and calling the dll from non-gpl exe is legal.

As far as MPEG licenses go, I've got no idea. But I imagine there has got to be some way to get one if you need it.

[Nic]

"but compiling gpl.c into gpl.dll and calling the dll from non-gpl exe is legal."

I've emailed GNU about this before...and they stated that you could not do that under the GPL, the DLL would need to be under the LGPL license.

It's not very clear from the GPL, but I believed them. It comes down to it being a "derived work" I think...

-Nic

ps
@Radek:
"Anyway, it would be nice if someone smarter than me..."
Well S. Hawking isn't very chatty & Einstein's dead so you'll have to suffice ;)

[aiataga]

found in one gpl software: (bolded is by me)
// Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is
// making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and
// conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
// combination.
//
// As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you
// permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an
// executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent
// modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under
// terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked
// independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that
// module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from
// or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend
// this exception to your version of the library, but you are not
// obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this
// exception statement from your version.

[malkion]

legal issues aside, i just happen to be in love with xvid. no need to install a 2nd codec any longer, and it doesnt come with ad-support.

best wishes to all the devs who volunteer their precious time to keep xvid free.