[gerggerg]

Any one know what the legal implications of using a free decoder for a patented compression format are? Products like flash make it seem free as Adobe pays a flat rate to the patent holders for decoding mp3, h.264, etc. alleviating their users from having to worry about royalties. But would using this decoder, though free and open source, be infringing a patent?

note: I realize it's not production code. I'm asking more about the concept.

[shaver]

Use and distribution of implementations requires a license (though, curiously, x264 seems to get a pass), so using the decoder will require a license as with using a closed-source one.

[DarkShikari]

(though, curiously, x264 seems to get a pass)

If x264 does, so does VLC, mplayer, ffmpeg, gstreamer, and dozens of other applications that use video and audio decoders in Linux. Fortunately quite a lot of the world is not the United States, and today VLC is the world's second most popular media player and has never paid one cent in patent licensing fees.

But of course, yes, being open source does not magically exempt you from patent laws in countries with insane, broken patent laws. In practice, if you want to make a large-scale commercial application that will be distributed in the US that uses x264, you will probably need to pay for an MPEG-LA license. They're quite cheap, though: 0 cents per unit up to 100k units, 20 cents per unit after that until 5 million, and 10 cents per unit after that.

Largely, the question of whether a distro contains any particular piece of software is whether the people who run the repositories are willing to host it. This applies both to possibly-patented software, but also to libraries like DeCSS (necessary to play DVDs) that violate the laws in some countries, but not others.

[shaver]

You're right, of course. While I believe that the MPEG-LA's enforcement practices are not non-discrimatory as it's claimed to be, that's a different discussion, and it wasn't appropriate to single x264 out that way.

I apologize.

[yuhong]

Hopefully MPEG LA is seeing this and will sort out licensing for websites using this.

[hackermom]

Only if it's in a commercial situation.

[shaver]

No, it's noncommercial (really not user-monetized) streaming of video that's free. Shipping H.264 hardware requires paying licenses regardless of whether it's a commercial situation or not. For software, if the patents are enforceable in your jurisdiction, it's the same thing.

[sp332]

At least until 2015, you won't need a license unless you're distributing commercial content to other end users or building an H.264 encoder. And the MPEG-LA has agreed to never charge anyone for watching free videos, so Youtube viewers will never get shaken down. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-pa... Maybe after 2015, they will start collecting royalties on commercial decoders.

[wmf]

It sure looks like decoders have to pay: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsS...

[hackermom]

Contrary to what certain parties like Mozilla may claim, by the MPEG licenses, there are none. We have had this topic up here a few hundred times, mostly related to the recent h.264/WebM debacle and all the fud and disinformation spread about usage of h.264. There is a reason why the x264 team, the XviD team, the L.A.M.E team, people offering h.264 video and AAC audio etc. for free have not been subjected to lawsuits from the MPEG, and this is why: MPEG has always, not just for h.264 but also for mp3, mpeg-4 asp etc., said that there are no costs of any kind involved for any party - distributors and end-users alike - dealing with MPEG data or MPEG technology in any way, as long as it is all done in a free-of-charge scenario.

[shaver]

No, but this is a common misconception. Though the summaries talk about "sold to users", the license itself defines "sale" in such a way as to include zero-cost distribution:

"Sale (Sell) (Sold) (Seller) – shall mean any sale, rental, lease, license, copying, transfer, reproduction, Transmission, or other form of distribution of an AVC Product or the Transmission by any means of AVC Video either directly or through a chain of distribution."

This is consistent with the discussions I've been party to with the MPEG-LA directly.

Edited to add: I would very much appreciate a reference to MPEG-LA saying the things you indicate in your comment. It would be very interesting to be able to point to those statements, in a number of ways.