5 ms·

He included an unlicensed H.264 decoder in his app. He could have avoided this by either using Chrome's built-in APIs[1], utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implement

by Sephr 10y ago

He included an unlicensed H.264 decoder in his app. He could have avoided this by either using Chrome's built-in APIs[1], utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implementation[2], or simply paying the license fees himself. Google and Cisco are already paying the fees to make developers lives easier. As much as I hate patent trolls, this isn't really patent trolling. To make matters worse, I informed Koushik Dutta about this possible issue back in 2015[3] and he closed my GitHub issue and ignored it. I'm not surprised at the outcome. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/struct_p_p_b___video_encoder__0__2 https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/pepper_dev/c/stru... [2]: http://www.openh264.org/ http://www.openh264.org/ [3]: https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84 https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84

userbinator 10y ago
utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implementation What difference does it make? It even seems backwards in some sense --- that writing code based on a freely available spec means you have to pay a license fee, yet someone else can give away their implementation freely? IANAL, so perhaps what we think of as the crazy and contorted bureaucratic mess that is the patent system would make sense in some strange and twisted way to those who designed it.
- Sephr 10y ago
  The difference is that Cisco is already paying the license fee for you, as long as you use their pre-built binaries.
  - ndesaulniers 10y ago
    > as long as you use their pre-built binaries. That's so fucking stupid.
    - throwawaykf05 10y ago
      Not really, it's just compliance with the license that a piece of software is offered with. Things are no less silly in the world of open source. You are bound to honor the license of the open source software that you use. For instance, if your app links to a GPL library, you are bound to offer your code under the GPL too. However if it links to a BSD-licensed library that does the exact same thing, you don't have to.
- tacos 10y ago
  I can write code based on someone else's IP and post it. Because open source! I'm a hero! I implemented a spec. Wow! Why should anyone be able to nullify the entire value of another company just by implementing the spec they published? Therefore, the patent system.
  - krapht 10y ago
    I thought mathematical algorithms couldn't be patented, which is what a compression algorithm is, no?
    - throwawaykf05 10y ago
      No, only abstract mathematical algorithms cannot be patented. Compression is a concrete application of mathematical algorithms.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Of course, their IP doesn't have value because it's particularly clever, it has value because it's in a specification that people have to implement in order to inter-operate with everything else that's based on the same specification. Their patent could be on a trivial tweak to something that's unpatented with no benefit other than making them money in licensing fees, and as long as they can get their version into the standard...
    - tacos 10y ago
      As a consumer I can watch videos for free on multiple services. I can create them for free on multiple devices with free software packages. And, as someone who battled multiple inane video and audio formats since the late 80s, now's the only time in history where it's fast, easy, cheap and trivial to distribute media that just works on any device. I'm sure somebody will try to claim "chilling effect" based on one of those "free" not being Free. But things are better than they've ever been from the point of view that matters most: getting stuff done, getting stuff published, and getting yourself heard without forcing your audience to install stuff first. Some tiny royalty payment pre-paid by the platform doesn't destroy the experience. But forcing my mom to install some sketchy open source software with the wrong volume control UI then telling her to drag and drop my Happy Mother's Day video onto a traffic cone sure does.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- detaro 10y ago
  You don't have to pay for writing code based on the spec, you have to pay for users using it. Just as Cisco does for users of their free binaries. (They probably don't pay all that much extra since they already pay tons of fees for their own products, and it has to be some kind of flat-rate deal since they can't track precise user numbers) If you take their code and compile it yourself, you are on the hook for fees of users, just as if you wrote the code yourself. I don't like it, but it is a logical option that if someone pays it is the one responsible for making the "product" (=binary including the codec)
  - sp332 10y ago
    They don't pay any extra, since the license agreement actually has a maximum of $6.5 million per year. Well that was true through 2015 at least, I can't find a source for this year. http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-...
  - ndesaulniers 10y ago
    > If you take their code and compile it yourself, you are on the hook for fees of users I'm sorry, how is using the source which needs compilation different from using the binary provided?
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      I would assume it falls under a separate license scheme, hence why programmers shouldn't try to be lawyers.
    - clacke2 10y ago
      Simply that Cisco pays for one use and not the other.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - hub_ 10y ago
      This is why Firefox download the CISCO binaries at startup... Can't have nice things.
aaronbrethorst 10y ago
> he closed my GitHub issue and ignored it. He closed it five days ago, which seems especially interesting. fwiw, speaking as the maintainer of a reasonably popular OSS project, it may be worthwhile to include actionable next steps in your issue. Including the comment you just wrote here might have made it easier for him to take action on this back in 2015.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Ace17 10y ago
You're confusing copyright with patents here. Software patents on formats can't be avoided just by switching the implementation.
koushikdutta 10y ago
Yeah, I took a break from the project since last August. Hadn't read any of the issues. When I got back, I bulk closed everything that did not look relevant to the functionality of Vysor (didn't even read the issue). Was just trying to get through the bug backlog effeciently. Three days later, I received a letter from the MPEG-LA. Btw, Chrome's built in APIs (Pepper VideoDecoder) were not available until around 10 months after my first implementation of Vysor. Your issue was opened in November. I closed it on May 11th, and received the letter on May 13th. Timing here is definitely suspect.

by Sephr 10y ago

userbinator 10y ago

utilizing Cisco's free H.264 implementation What difference does it make? It even seems backwards in some sense --- that writing code based on a freely available spec means you have to pay a license fee, yet someone else can give away their implementation freely? IANAL, so perhaps what we think of as the crazy and contorted bureaucratic mess that is the patent system would make sense in some strange and twisted way to those who designed it.

Sephr 10y ago
The difference is that Cisco is already paying the license fee for you, as long as you use their pre-built binaries.
- ndesaulniers 10y ago
  > as long as you use their pre-built binaries. That's so fucking stupid.
  - throwawaykf05 10y ago
    Not really, it's just compliance with the license that a piece of software is offered with. Things are no less silly in the world of open source. You are bound to honor the license of the open source software that you use. For instance, if your app links to a GPL library, you are bound to offer your code under the GPL too. However if it links to a BSD-licensed library that does the exact same thing, you don't have to.
tacos 10y ago
I can write code based on someone else's IP and post it. Because open source! I'm a hero! I implemented a spec. Wow! Why should anyone be able to nullify the entire value of another company just by implementing the spec they published? Therefore, the patent system.
- krapht 10y ago
  I thought mathematical algorithms couldn't be patented, which is what a compression algorithm is, no?
  - throwawaykf05 10y ago
    No, only abstract mathematical algorithms cannot be patented. Compression is a concrete application of mathematical algorithms.
- makomk 10y ago
  Of course, their IP doesn't have value because it's particularly clever, it has value because it's in a specification that people have to implement in order to inter-operate with everything else that's based on the same specification. Their patent could be on a trivial tweak to something that's unpatented with no benefit other than making them money in licensing fees, and as long as they can get their version into the standard...
  - tacos 10y ago
    As a consumer I can watch videos for free on multiple services. I can create them for free on multiple devices with free software packages. And, as someone who battled multiple inane video and audio formats since the late 80s, now's the only time in history where it's fast, easy, cheap and trivial to distribute media that just works on any device. I'm sure somebody will try to claim "chilling effect" based on one of those "free" not being Free. But things are better than they've ever been from the point of view that matters most: getting stuff done, getting stuff published, and getting yourself heard without forcing your audience to install stuff first. Some tiny royalty payment pre-paid by the platform doesn't destroy the experience. But forcing my mom to install some sketchy open source software with the wrong volume control UI then telling her to drag and drop my Happy Mother's Day video onto a traffic cone sure does.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
detaro 10y ago
You don't have to pay for writing code based on the spec, you have to pay for users using it. Just as Cisco does for users of their free binaries. (They probably don't pay all that much extra since they already pay tons of fees for their own products, and it has to be some kind of flat-rate deal since they can't track precise user numbers) If you take their code and compile it yourself, you are on the hook for fees of users, just as if you wrote the code yourself. I don't like it, but it is a logical option that if someone pays it is the one responsible for making the "product" (=binary including the codec)
- sp332 10y ago
  They don't pay any extra, since the license agreement actually has a maximum of $6.5 million per year. Well that was true through 2015 at least, I can't find a source for this year. http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-...
- ndesaulniers 10y ago
  > If you take their code and compile it yourself, you are on the hook for fees of users I'm sorry, how is using the source which needs compilation different from using the binary provided?
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    I would assume it falls under a separate license scheme, hence why programmers shouldn't try to be lawyers.
  - clacke2 10y ago
    Simply that Cisco pays for one use and not the other.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - hub_ 10y ago
    This is why Firefox download the CISCO binaries at startup... Can't have nice things.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago

> he closed my GitHub issue and ignored it. He closed it five days ago, which seems especially interesting. fwiw, speaking as the maintainer of a reasonably popular OSS project, it may be worthwhile to include actionable next steps in your issue. Including the comment you just wrote here might have made it easier for him to take action on this back in 2015.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Ace17 10y ago

You're confusing copyright with patents here. Software patents on formats can't be avoided just by switching the implementation.

koushikdutta 10y ago

Yeah, I took a break from the project since last August. Hadn't read any of the issues. When I got back, I bulk closed everything that did not look relevant to the functionality of Vysor (didn't even read the issue). Was just trying to get through the bug backlog effeciently. Three days later, I received a letter from the MPEG-LA. Btw, Chrome's built in APIs (Pepper VideoDecoder) were not available until around 10 months after my first implementation of Vysor. Your issue was opened in November. I closed it on May 11th, and received the letter on May 13th. Timing here is definitely suspect.