[x264-devel] Re: Legal Status

[Dmitriy Vatolin]

Hello Alex,

   Wonderful answer!

   Also it's reasonable to say, that MPEG-LA for H.264 has better
   condition, than for MPEG-4 for example. Also it's not necessary to
   pay (but necessary to register) if your sales less then 50000 (AFAIR
   - it's necessary to check this), so it's solvable question.

   BTW - we sent to Loren Merritt our test of x264 for review, hope you
   received it.

Yours,
 Dr. Vatolin

Friday, August 18, 2006, 5:53:04 PM, you wrote:

AI> Farooq,

AI> I recommend you talk to a good intellectual propery attorney who can
AI> explain "derivative work".  The short answer is:  any modifications
AI> belong to whoever wrote them, but at the same time the original that
AI> they are inextricably a part of belongs to whoever wrote that as well...
AI> and what you can do with the combination of the two (the "derivative
AI> work") is just whatever both authors will permit you (and if their terms
AI> disagree, quite possibly the answer is "nothing").

AI> Since x264 is distributed under the GPL, you can do whatever you want
AI> with it, but if you *distribute* it, or a modified version, or a larger
AI> program that incorporates it, the *complete* source code for that *must*
AI> be licensed also under the GPL and distributed with it.  The GPL
AI> contains a more thorough (and authoritative) description of the terms so
AI> you should read that (and again: talk to an attorney who specializes in
AI> open-source licenses).

AI> Since Tom Jacobs mentioned MPEG-LA, let me just say a word about that:
AI> the H264 standard incorporates a number of patents.  In order to get
AI> them adopted as part of the standard, the patent-holders had to agree to
AI> license them under "fair and nondiscriminatory" terms to everyone.
AI> MPEG-LA handles the actual licensing on their behalf.  You definitely
AI> need a patent license for a number of things you might use x264 for (not
AI> for everything, I believe a number of small or non-commercial uses have
AI> an automatic exemption, but for commercial use you probably need a
AI> license).  However (and this is an extremely important and possibly
AI> confusing point) the patent license for H264 is *completely separate*
AI> from the copyright license for x264.  You need both; you need to comply
AI> with the terms of both; if one says you can do something and the other
AI> says you can't, then you can't.

AI> Lastly, a word of warning: open source projects generally have an
AI> excellent track record of catching and dealing with people who break the
AI> license terms.  The perception may be that "who cares, it's free
AI> anyway"... but people can get downright fanatical about it when you
AI> violate open-source licenses.  If you follow the rules and play nice,
AI> you can freely use this incredible software for all kinds of things,
AI> even commercially.  But you do have to follow the rules.  Asking on the
AI> mailing list is an excellent first step ;)

AI> Hope that clears things up.

AI> Regards,
AI> --Alex

AI> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 03:02 -0700, farooq Ahmad wrote:
>> What will be the legal status of companies that just modify naming 
>> conventions for variables as well as functions but keep similar code 
>> structure? Will that code be considered their proprietary implementation? 
>> What are the licensing issues in using x264 current implementation.
>> 
>> Regards
>> The Video Genie
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>> 




-- 
Best regards,
 Dmitriy                            mailto:dmitriy at graphics.cs.msu.ru


-- 
This is the x264-devel mailing-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://developers.videolan.org/lists.html