[mythtv] Android build

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 1:19 PM Peter Bennett <pb.mythtv at gmail.com> wrote:

> This make me curious about how ubuntu handles the problem. ffmpeg, vlc,
> mythtv, etc. are available for download from ubuntu. Does somebody pay
> the mpeg license fees every time somebody downloads them? Perhaps ubuntu
> has a special arrangement? Also many other places have video and audio
> player software available for download (e.g. the vlc website). They must
> have the same problem.

It is complicated.  First, I am not your IP lawyer (and
only *your* IP lawyer should be trusted to provide you
with the complete details relevant for your specific
cases.  Talk to her/him for their opinion).  Also note
that this applies to all protected IP, although we almost
always focus on the codecs, they are not necessarily
the only things of concern (that requires *your* IP
lawyer to review every possible infringement).  And
note that only binary distributions count (the software
codes themselves can not be infringing).  Next, look
to where the organization is based for IP licensing
requirements and distribution responsibilities.  In your
example, Canonical lawyers would appear to have
advised their org that the EU law(s) apply, which do
not recognize software patents (Canonical lawyers
have also advised them that they are allowed to
ship combined software with incompatible licenses,
which to this day is controversial in the OSS world).
There is a reason that VLC is "based" in France
(but note their android app reportedly uses the
android multimedia framework for presentation).

In the US (where you, and most app stores are based)
have different IP laws and requirements.  Using
a different example of RedHat, which is based
in the US, they do not include any IP licensed content
in their distribution (they do ship a FFmpeg which
is stripped of any IP licensed code, but as FFmpeg
has a plugin architecture others can install
additional codecs if they have an appropriate
license).  For some distributions there are 3rd party
apps that are user managed/controlled that may
build and offer IP licensed applications (which
the distros typically require the individuals to
take ownership/responsibility for in the CLA).
Many individuals (although not companies with
a competent legal staff and SBOM process) may
be unaware that they are using software for
which they do not have a license on Linux,
however, as the old saying goes, "ignorance of
the law is no excuse" in terms of any potential
violation.  And then there is enforcement.  Many
(but not all) of the licensing authorities often choose
to not enforce against individuals that provide free
apps (since the ability to collect any substantial
money is typically limited to the value of the
infringers home, being the asset with the highest
value, and the ROI is not always positive after
lawyer fees, except, possibly, for those living on
the coasts), but they have that right should they
choose to do so, and have done so in some cases
(and if you or a company benefits in any way from
the app (even just "mindshare")  you are more
likely to receive their (or more specifically, their
lawyers) attention, and only a fool wishes to be
a "test" case).  FWIW, at least one well known IP
owner has repeatedly had even "free" open source
projects removed from app stores when use of
their IP (without license) is determined because
they believe in the principles of following the
laws/regulations (and they want their money, of
course).

So, after talking with *your* IP lawyer, who is
expected to provide you with their best legal
advice, you (or others) are obviously free to
decide if you wish to move forward with any
app.