3 ms·

I'd think that H.264 isn't subject to this definition - or, at worst, it falls in a gray area of sorts - as the H.264 technology is unencumbered by license fees

I'd think that H.264 isn't subject to this definition - or, at worst, it falls in a gray area of sorts - as the H.264 technology is unencumbered by license fees if it's used non-commercially. No developer of gratis software using MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 tech. has ever been subjected to a legal case initiated by the MPEG-LA.

bzbarsky 16y ago
> the H.264 technology is unencumbered by license fees if > it's used non-commercially That's not true, unfortunately. There may have been no lawsuits (I can't comment on that, though I'd like to see your data). But that's just because the MPEG-LA hasn't felt like suing people. If you're shipping an H.264 encoder or decoder in binary form to people and not paying the relevant licensing fees, then you're infringing on the patents. There's no exception for "non-commercial" use there last I checked. If you think there is, please cite.
- anonymous246 16y ago
  They probably won't do it. Somebody will come up something similar to the hack/exploit that Mozilla did: set up a for-profit corporation to receive money and a non-profit foundation (which owns 100% of corp's shares) to do the development. Then they can claim that the non-profit foundation is the one that's really using the patents and hence should not have to pay royalties.