<div dir="ltr">That's an interesting point that I never thought about. I suppose they COULD go after an open source implementation, but what would they have to gain? On the other hand, a TV manufacturer puts it in their set and the patent holders can sue for millions. <div><br></div><div>I'm still not totally convinced that h265 will take over h264, but who knows. And even looking up h.264 licensing, it sounds like you still might have to pay some usage fees to somebody if you're a big business and not an end user.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 1:46 PM, dennis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deg@outlook.com" target="_blank">deg@outlook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I agree, but the patent issues has always been there, way back including the gif/jpg standards.<br>
<br>
>From what I have seen, most patent owners don't try to stop open source software implementation of standards. It actually helps them with development and gain wider acceptance. Do they care if a early adaptor plays a H265 file using VLC? Probably not.<br>
<br>
Embed it in a chip on a TV, or video card, or hand held device, commercial software and its a different story. If someone tries to sell a product that uses it, that's when the patent holders demand money.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Whether one agrees with software (algorithm) patents or not,<br>
the fact is that they exist, and are enforceable, in a number<br>
of jurisdictions. H.265 is filled with a number of patents that<br>
appear, at first read, to be either obvious, or overly broad.<br>
However, now that the patents have been granted, and<br>
codified as part of the standard, the FRAND licensing and<br>
pricing comes into play. And FOSS does not play well<br>
with FRAND.<br>
<br>
To provide a (theoretical, and absolutely not accurate)<br>
example, say a popular web browser decided to embed<br>
a software based H.265 player. By the terms of the GPL,<br>
they would be responsible for paying for the patent licensing<br>
for everyone who used it. Let us say that browser currently<br>
has about a 15% share. With ~3 billion Internet users<br>
(some may share devices, but lets go with it), that means<br>
the company owes the patent owners about $180 million<br>
dollars (no, none of those numbers are correct, but you get<br>
the order of magnitude of the issue). And while a company<br>
with deep pockets may be able to absorb such payments and<br>
include a player in their software, not so much for all other<br>
organizations. A common "work around" is to launch an<br>
external player. Let someone else pay the royalty (also<br>
works with using hardware based decoding, where someone<br>
else has paid for the hardware license). But now your<br>
software may not work equally well (or at all) on all platforms.<br>
Note that that video codec license does not include the<br>
audio codec license fees (that may be the same, or more)<br>
(you want audio with that video?)<br>
<br>
It should be noted that Cisco, in order to address the<br>
discussion over choice of codec for WebRTC, is paying<br>
for a license for H.264 (as long as you use their binary).<br>
That was extreme goodness for WebRTC deployment in<br>
FOSS projects. But that does not address all current<br>
H.264 uses (it is only the constrained profile, as I recall).<br>
<br>
Mozilla (and others) continue to push for a true unencumbered<br>
set of codecs (daala), but history shows that avoiding all patents<br>
(given the large number of patents out there that are overly<br>
broad) is not an easy task, and gaining industry adoption is<br>
likely even harder (and if no one supports you, you have failed).<br>
<br>
So, for those that believe that codecs should be free,<br>
H.265 and H.264, and .... are simply evil, and worse,<br>
promote future evil by being adopted.<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org" target="_blank">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://lists.mythtv.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
<a href="http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette" target="_blank">http://wiki.mythtv.org/<u></u>Mailing_List_etiquette</a><br>
MythTV Forums: <a href="https://forum.mythtv.org" target="_blank">https://forum.mythtv.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org" target="_blank">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://lists.mythtv.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
<a href="http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette" target="_blank">http://wiki.mythtv.org/<u></u>Mailing_List_etiquette</a><br>
MythTV Forums: <a href="https://forum.mythtv.org" target="_blank">https://forum.mythtv.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>