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. |
22nd August 2010, 15:20 | #61 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 756
|
Quote:
1. They are not based in US. And most of the dev aren't from US. They have no such thing as Software patent. Much like what EU and UK judges argues that US is trying to patents everything under the sun. 2. There are about Zillions of Software Patents. To read up everything and remember not implement them is totally impractical if that is even possible for human being. 3. Even if they are in violation of a patents, they are not providing any binaries. You are perfectly legal to download the source code and compile it for yourself even if you are in US. Compiling in itself is not illegal. Using it is a different matter in US. |
|
22nd August 2010, 15:22 | #62 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 176
|
philosophically more than legally, because the legalities of the gpl are equally murky waters. this is a discussion that transcends into the current state of United States patents on abstract ideas even if the simple machine or transformation test applies, ie algorithm patents. this is not a new or cut and dry discussion, it's almost like discussing politics or religion.
|
22nd August 2010, 15:55 | #63 | Link | ||
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
22nd August 2010, 20:52 | #64 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 211
|
You are right neuron2, as long as its free it should be compatible. But in the end it is... half compatible? A little compatible? very compatible?
IMO if you enforce the gpl, they are incompatible. Still if you get an MPEG license, the authors of the GPL software had to sue you to get into trouble. Then a judge had to interpret the GPL and tell right from wrong. For x264, we could ask the x264 LLC, they might make an GPL exception for free licenses for GPL code. (link). Pretty much all other projects use ffmpeg anyways (which this thread is about) and they have to many codecs to license that can't be licensed for free. |
22nd August 2010, 23:05 | #65 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 27
|
All h264 code made of A SINGLE programmers. And patent holders now FAR AWAY from true IDEA, that they HOLD. Without good free coding programmers we never have h264, CUDA, emulators and so on. Only reach company CAN PAY for license, and CAN ENSLAVE all of us. Cause new generation of programmers CAN NOT do a simple os code, simple edit, play and convert software. All "new tools" is MONSTRO being. 4Gigabytes, 8Gigabytes, 25Gigabytes. Are you Remember sony playstation 3 and all game for her? Its absurd theater. All game of sony playstation use h264 for video sequence. But all thouse product is emptyness. It's tones Gigabytes of nothing. And real pay
of user consist of true lie. "My product is cost $555.0". But why? Money is only paper - or you don't know it? One who prints the money - prints our all slaveness. If MPEGLA hold patent. Let it hold. But all that we can give MPEGLA - is respect for good IDEA. And make from IDEA to stand alone program (binary) - it is ours. It is ours life. Think about patent of clear air. All who breath must get license for any single inhale. h264 is a planetary invention, like an sun shine. With best regards, seemees |
23rd August 2010, 07:55 | #67 | Link |
ZZZzzzz...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 303
|
And that is the problem. They created a great piece of software without regard to others intellectual property and then release it worldwide (again without regard for others IP). For everyone's sake, I hope MPEG LA gets defeated and this whole mess goes away.
|
23rd August 2010, 09:44 | #68 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 176
|
"in re bilski", proves that the supreme court will not be doing away with software patents anytime soon. so the patents themselves will not be going away, what we can hope for is that the DOJ does actually take a good look at the mpeg-la and if any monopolistic abuses are occurring, take appropriate measures. us citizens write your congressman.
|
25th August 2010, 03:35 | #69 | Link | |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
Quote:
Every patent would have to be licensed by every single patent holder. MPEG-LA is a patent pool and it is supposed to simplify things... The ideal solution is MPEG-LA does exactly what it was created for with a bit of flexibility.
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! |
|
25th August 2010, 07:22 | #70 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 278
|
Quote:
Particularly since taking a license from MPEG-LA doesn't change that situation at all in principle, it just changes your chances. |
|
25th August 2010, 10:58 | #71 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,770
|
Is the IRS compatible with VAT, to give an example from the US?
A licence is an agreement, nothing more. You can distribute the code and the binaries both under GPL/GPL2 and MPEG-LA, provided you pay the royalties for MPEG-LA (part of the deal). Where's the legal problem? Where's the incompatibility? That a free developer should pay for other people to be happy with his free software? It's just a financial issue ... |
25th August 2010, 11:22 | #73 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 589
|
Quote:
However, as far as I understand, they started this and they were an exception as were accepted by US government as a company licensing a series of "essentials" patents, limited in number. Over the years, every few months or so, MPEG-LA found more "essential" patents to add to the pool, thus extending artificially the time and preventing the standard from going free, and forcing people to pay licenses for longer time. I think this was explained better in Nero's lawsuit press release, where they accuse them of monopoly or something like that. Later edit: Yes, here it is: Quote:
|
||
25th August 2010, 15:10 | #74 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
im only saying the ideal solution is MPEG-LA keeps a FAIR patent pool and stops doing unfair practices.
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! |
26th August 2010, 08:12 | #75 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
|
|
26th August 2010, 08:46 | #76 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 88
|
ffmpeg guys probably need to add similar to lame project FAQ to website (if they haven't)
http://lame.sourceforge.net/tech-FAQ.txt Quote:
When and why you CANNOT use FFMPEG in your programs! (not directly related to this thread) |
|
27th August 2010, 08:19 | #79 | Link |
ZZZzzzz...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 303
|
MPEG LA decided to place a permanent royalty moratorium on AVC/H.264! Read all about it here! A very interesting move. I wonder how it will affect FFMPEG and the like.
|
Tags |
neuron2 qed |
|
|