5 ms·
Just because they don't pay a fee, doesn't mean they don't have to. However, they seem to be passing on the responsibility to the end users: "... Hence there i
by spatulon 17y ago
Just because they don't pay a fee, doesn't mean they don't have to. However, they seem to be passing on the responsibility to the end users:
"... Hence there is not need to obtain any patent licenses for VideoLAN software within the European Union. In other venues, please check any applicable law."
http://www.videolan.org/support/faq.html http://www.videolan.org/support/faq.html
The VideoLan organisation may be based in the EU, but there are a number of companies in the US whose servers act as VLC mirrors. Would they be potential targets if the MPEG-LA decided to do something about VLC being unlicensed? With its widespread popularity it can hardly have gone unnoticed.
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoI'm sure they don't want the negative press as they are trying to convince everyone to adopt their codec into HTML5. VLC's mirror servers could be shutdown but would they make money on a lawsuit? Do the VLC distributors have enough to make it worth while, not until they've managed to weasel into HTML5 implementations in all the top browsers - after that every video app using 264 will be a worthy target I'd have thought as the less apps not paying license fees the more sales of those that are. It's going to be GIF all over again, oh joy.