Then we shall have to switch to low-profile distributors for our free software then.Īs others have pointed out, the lack of interest in pursuing these projects is no guarantee that they will not be pursued in the future. VLC, MPlayer and FFmpeg are not high-profile distributors? It seems that

It's true that patent claims are ubiquitous, but when the choice is to proliferate known patent-encumbered technologies licensed by an active enforcement organisation, or to seek to use other technologies that are not known to be encumbered and are more easily defended, the responsible path is the latter not the former. Avoidance is not viable when everything except 'Hello World!' is patented, which is the situation we are in now. So, in fact, even if someone does obtain a licence from the cartel, it isn't clear whether that licence covers the whole spectrum of distribution given that Free Software doesn't distinguish between 'personal consumer use' and 'providers'. Why? Because you say so even though the MPEG-LA licensing terms disagree?įrom the location mentioned previously, I can find a summary of the terms - the real terms being sent out only on request, it would seem - which clearly impose restrictions on the purposes for which encoder/decoder products can be used. Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web

Ffmpeg linux licensing