On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:20:44 -0800,
Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another thing to worry about is how the binary is licensed. Accepting that
license (even in places where software patents don't apply) could
potentially cause issues. I haven't read the license for it yet, but most
I've seen this sentiment expressed in several posts. There are H.264
patents in the MPEG-LA AVC patent pool current and issued in something
like 46 countries. I haven't checked what percentage of the world's
population the list covers, but I would be surprised if it weren't on
the order of >95%. (
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf )
In the US, at least, accepting a patent license (even paying for one)
doesn't preclude you from challenging the validity of a patent.
I was thinking more of the non-commercial use restrictions you might end
up agreeing to when you accept the license of the binary. In the places
where software patents didn't apply, you'd probably either use x264 or
build openh264 from source to avoid those restrictions.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
