[mythtv-users] H265 support

[Gary Buhrmaster]

Here, let me fix your extremely badly formatted posting for you....

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:46 PM, dennis <deg at outlook.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Whether one agrees with software (algorithm) patents or not,
>> the fact is that they exist, and are enforceable, in a number
>> of jurisdictions.  H.265 is filled with a number of patents that
>> appear, at first read, to be either obvious, or overly broad.
>> However, now that the patents have been granted, and
>> codified as part of the standard, the FRAND licensing and
>> pricing comes into play.  And FOSS does not play well
>> with FRAND.
>>
>> To provide a (theoretical, and absolutely not accurate)
>> example, say a popular web browser decided to embed
>> a software based H.265 player.  By the terms of the GPL,
>> they would be responsible for paying for the patent licensing
>> for everyone who used it.  Let us say that browser currently
>> has about a 15% share.  With ~3 billion Internet users
>> (some may share devices, but lets go with it), that means
>> the company owes the patent owners about $180 million
>> dollars (no, none of those numbers are correct, but you get
>> the order of magnitude of the issue).  And while a company
>> with deep pockets may be able to absorb such payments and
>> include a player in their software, not so much for all other
>> organizations.  A common "work around" is to launch an
>> external player.  Let someone else pay the royalty (also
>> works with using hardware based decoding, where someone
>> else has paid for the hardware license).  But now your
>> software may not work equally well (or at all) on all platforms.
>> Note that that video codec license does not include the
>> audio codec license fees (that may be the same, or more)
>> (you want audio with that video?)
>>
>> It should be noted that Cisco, in order to address the
>> discussion over choice of codec for WebRTC, is paying
>> for a license for H.264 (as long as you use their binary).
>> That was extreme goodness for WebRTC deployment in
>> FOSS projects.  But that does not address all current
>> H.264 uses (it is only the constrained profile, as I recall).
>>
>> Mozilla (and others) continue to push for a true unencumbered
>> set of codecs (daala), but history shows that avoiding all patents
>> (given the large number of patents out there that are overly
>> broad) is not an easy task, and gaining industry adoption is
>> likely even harder (and if no one supports you, you have failed).
>>
>> So, for those that believe that codecs should be free,
>> H.265 and H.264, and .... are simply evil, and worse,
>> promote future evil by being adopted.

> I agree,  but the patent issues has always been there,  way back including
> the gif/jpg standards.
>
> From what I have seen, most patent owners don't try to stop open source
> software implementation of standards.

You may need to look harder (or use better terms
in Lexis/Nexis).  There are some patent holders
that have stated they will not go after FOSS as long as
they, themselves are not sued (enough caveats to
cover lots of cases, including withdrawal of the grant).
There are others that *have* gone after FOSS for failing
to license their patents (and in one case, a company
was both in the 1st and 2nd kind, depending on the
decade).  And there are many of a third kind that say
and do nothing, with a potential claim in their back pocket,
too.  Whether they are FOSS friendly, or submariners,
has not been established (and any conjecture as to
which has no value).

> Do they care if a early adaptor
> plays a H265 file using VLC?  Probably not.

They learned a lesson from the RIAA/MPAA, that suing
the individual is non-productive (they neither recoup the
costs, nor tend to influence others to follow the laws
of the jurisdiction (and did I mention the usual bad
press on slashdor?)).  And In many cases, the code,
itself, is not the issue (patents, after all, have to be
published openly), it is only implementations/uses that
can be infringing.  So, it is the binary distributors (an actual
implementation) that are on the hook for potential
infringement, and having to pay the licensing fees (not
the end user).  There are few (to none) projects which
are explicit in saying with their software that it is free
to look at, but you may not actually use it without a
license (which we do not provide and cannot obtain,
and btw, neither can you (ha ha, we are such a tease!)),
although more than one tries to have it both ways by
saying things like "this is for educational use only".
I know of lawyers that have advised against being part
of any binary distribution of any software subject to
potential patent licensing claims in the jurisdiction
you reside in (if you want to keep your house :-).
Your lawyer may vary (and your companies insurance
may indemnify you (or not)).

You might note that some software is written and
distributed in countries with different legal frameworks.
That is not (always) an accident.  The French legal
system (where the videolan/VLC project is incorporated)
has different rules than the US.

As with much else, you get to decide for yourself
what risks you are willing to take.  A fully educated
decision process is advised.