8 ms·

Kvazaar HEVC/H.265 encoder released under GPLv2

93 points by Fador 13y ago

Eduard 13y ago
What about the patents in use within HEVC? Will an open source implementation provider have to pay royalties for each download? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#S... )
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Only if they provide binaries, at that point it gets patent cooties, and they'd be liable for $25 million per year.
  - dave1010uk 13y ago
    Is it as clear cut as binaries == license required; source code == no licence required? Is this specific to the codec's patent pool or how patents work in general? What about interpreted languages or bytecode?
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
      Note that once you get that source code, when you start using it, then you are responsible for the patent royalties. I think this is all left intentionally vague by patent owners, since they want you to just pay to be on the safe side, there's plenty of straightforward things you technically can't do with patented codecs, but which you'll never get sued for e.g. the person you pay to video your wedding has no licence to sell you the H.264 file the camera produced, and no way of getting one. So I think it's at least partly based on what they haven't bothered to sue anyone over, though perhaps free speech comes into it in the USA.
    - zobzu 13y ago
      having source code has nothing to do with patents. its completely separate. likewie for the license. both could be public domain (no license) or licensed. in this case its licensed under the terms of the gpl v2 and a bunch if the code is probably patented, (again, compiled or not, that doesn't change anything)
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      You can study patents for free; that is part of the purported purpose of the system. So if you copy the code purely to learn about it, that is arguably not an infringement. Using the code is in violation without a license. This applies whether source, interpreted, compiled, bytecode, or decompiled. It will be harder to convince a judge that you were just studying it if you have only a form that is conducive to running and not conducive to study, though, if you are found out and sued. Of course, you'd better not plan on using anything you learned from it until you negotiate licenses for your users (or the patent expires).
  - otterley 13y ago
    This is absolutely false.
josteink 13y ago
While I recognize the technical excellent qualities of H264 and expect H265 to improve on that, at this point I'd rather not touch anything which involves patents at all. Let's not give the Apples and similar patent-trolls of the future more ammunition to shoot with than strictly necessary. Give us free and open alternatives. Give us a future where we can focus on the technology being delivered, not the lawyers which will need to get paid in order to avoid takedown notices.
- coob 13y ago
  That's an odd definition of patent troll. In my understanding, patent trolls don't actually produce any products.
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    I guess Apple would more accurately be called "patent bully" or "patent abuser".
    - aroch 13y ago
      How are they either?
      - lucian1900 13y ago
        They have sued over patents that should never have been granted.
        aroch 13y ago
        And which patents do you think should never have been granted? Those supposed bad patents have been held true in courts, repeatedly, around the world. Perhaps you just want a boogeyman to blame for what you perceive to be a broken system?
        lucian1900 13y ago
jwr 13y ago
Unfortunately the GPLv2 license makes this an academic exercise. Mind you, perhaps that was exactly the goal, so I'm not criticizing, just pointing out some issues. Quoting the GPLv2: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. What this basically means in the words of every legal advice I've gotten over the years is that by distributing software that is under GPLv2 you run the risk of having to stop distributing it. While this is fine in an academic setting, if you actually build a product using this software, you are toast. This section of the GPL is actually the major reason why many companies will go to great lengths to avoid using GPLv2 software in their products. Many people think it's the requirement to release the full source code — it's not. Releasing sources is rarely a problem. Please, if you reply to this, don't fight straw men: software authors can choose any license they please and it is their decision to make. I'm not criticizing that choice. I'm just pointing out some consequences which might not be obvious to everyone, and which are particularly relevant in the case of heavily patented video standards.
- gilgoomesh 13y ago
  The essence of point 7 of the GPL applies to every piece of software covered by patents you don't own or license – other people's patents can force you to do a lot of things against your will. Even if a more permissive BSD or MIT license were used, you could still be prevented from distributing due to patent rulings. In any case, many popular open-source encoders are also under either GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. Examples include libx264, libmp3lame, libfdk_aac, libfaac. The license hasn't prevented them being very useful to many people.
  - 13y ago
astrange 13y ago
The comments on this article are not technically interesting and mostly seem fear-based. An HEVC encoder is perfectly usable for home use, nobody will break in and sue you. I suppose not many people are qualified to comment on the program, though. Anyway, this code is unusually clean and actually structured, which is rare considering the horrors of most encoder codebases (libavcodec mpegvideo, android, any commercial source…). That's probably because it's not optimized for speed; most people act as if writing optimized code literally requires you to leave out comments and make the program ten times longer. But it is pretty much an academic codebase and doesn't really do much. Following x265's progress would be better for the moment if you want to use HEVC for anything.

93 points by Fador 13y ago

What about the patents in use within HEVC? Will an open source implementation provider have to pay royalties for each download? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#S... )

ZeroGravitas 13y ago
Only if they provide binaries, at that point it gets patent cooties, and they'd be liable for $25 million per year.
- dave1010uk 13y ago
  Is it as clear cut as binaries == license required; source code == no licence required? Is this specific to the codec's patent pool or how patents work in general? What about interpreted languages or bytecode?
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Note that once you get that source code, when you start using it, then you are responsible for the patent royalties. I think this is all left intentionally vague by patent owners, since they want you to just pay to be on the safe side, there's plenty of straightforward things you technically can't do with patented codecs, but which you'll never get sued for e.g. the person you pay to video your wedding has no licence to sell you the H.264 file the camera produced, and no way of getting one. So I think it's at least partly based on what they haven't bothered to sue anyone over, though perhaps free speech comes into it in the USA.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    having source code has nothing to do with patents. its completely separate. likewie for the license. both could be public domain (no license) or licensed. in this case its licensed under the terms of the gpl v2 and a bunch if the code is probably patented, (again, compiled or not, that doesn't change anything)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    You can study patents for free; that is part of the purported purpose of the system. So if you copy the code purely to learn about it, that is arguably not an infringement. Using the code is in violation without a license. This applies whether source, interpreted, compiled, bytecode, or decompiled. It will be harder to convince a judge that you were just studying it if you have only a form that is conducive to running and not conducive to study, though, if you are found out and sued. Of course, you'd better not plan on using anything you learned from it until you negotiate licenses for your users (or the patent expires).
- otterley 13y ago
  This is absolutely false.

josteink 13y ago

While I recognize the technical excellent qualities of H264 and expect H265 to improve on that, at this point I'd rather not touch anything which involves patents at all. Let's not give the Apples and similar patent-trolls of the future more ammunition to shoot with than strictly necessary. Give us free and open alternatives. Give us a future where we can focus on the technology being delivered, not the lawyers which will need to get paid in order to avoid takedown notices.

coob 13y ago
That's an odd definition of patent troll. In my understanding, patent trolls don't actually produce any products.
- lucian1900 13y ago
  I guess Apple would more accurately be called "patent bully" or "patent abuser".
  - aroch 13y ago
    How are they either?
    - lucian1900 13y ago
      They have sued over patents that should never have been granted.
      - aroch 13y ago
        And which patents do you think should never have been granted? Those supposed bad patents have been held true in courts, repeatedly, around the world. Perhaps you just want a boogeyman to blame for what you perceive to be a broken system?
        lucian1900 13y ago

jwr 13y ago

Unfortunately the GPLv2 license makes this an academic exercise. Mind you, perhaps that was exactly the goal, so I'm not criticizing, just pointing out some issues. Quoting the GPLv2: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. What this basically means in the words of every legal advice I've gotten over the years is that by distributing software that is under GPLv2 you run the risk of having to stop distributing it. While this is fine in an academic setting, if you actually build a product using this software, you are toast. This section of the GPL is actually the major reason why many companies will go to great lengths to avoid using GPLv2 software in their products. Many people think it's the requirement to release the full source code — it's not. Releasing sources is rarely a problem. Please, if you reply to this, don't fight straw men: software authors can choose any license they please and it is their decision to make. I'm not criticizing that choice. I'm just pointing out some consequences which might not be obvious to everyone, and which are particularly relevant in the case of heavily patented video standards.

gilgoomesh 13y ago
The essence of point 7 of the GPL applies to every piece of software covered by patents you don't own or license – other people's patents can force you to do a lot of things against your will. Even if a more permissive BSD or MIT license were used, you could still be prevented from distributing due to patent rulings. In any case, many popular open-source encoders are also under either GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. Examples include libx264, libmp3lame, libfdk_aac, libfaac. The license hasn't prevented them being very useful to many people.
- 13y ago

astrange 13y ago

The comments on this article are not technically interesting and mostly seem fear-based. An HEVC encoder is perfectly usable for home use, nobody will break in and sue you. I suppose not many people are qualified to comment on the program, though. Anyway, this code is unusually clean and actually structured, which is rare considering the horrors of most encoder codebases (libavcodec mpegvideo, android, any commercial source…). That's probably because it's not optimized for speed; most people act as if writing optimized code literally requires you to leave out comments and make the program ten times longer. But it is pretty much an academic codebase and doesn't really do much. Following x265's progress would be better for the moment if you want to use HEVC for anything.