5 ms·

What are you talking about? Daala is as open as you get.

by lambda 12y ago

khitchdee 12y ago
As I read it, they plan to patent new stuff. See page 9, the third bullet for example.
- lambda 12y ago
  Read the fourth bullet: "Use a patent license that encourages adoption and discourages defection." It sounds like they are planning on a copyleft-style defensive patent licensing system. Right now, one of the big reasons that open codecs like VP8 and VP9 don't see wider adoption is that there's a lot of FUD thrown around by people saying "they might infringe H.264/HEVC patents, it's too risky to use them without a patent licensing pool." By filing patents of their own, and offering them under a free (libre) license that has a clause causing it to be revoked if you engage in some other related patent litigation, this adds pressure against anyone trying to use their patents against someone using Daala. Not sure how well this would work out in practice; I know that some people have gotten patents under these kinds of defensive open patent licenses before, but I don't know if they've ever been used defensively in practice before.
  - sitkack 12y ago
    I wish we could easily get anti-patent patents.
  - pcwalton 12y ago
    Note that this is simply following the successful model of Opus: http://www.opus-codec.org/license/ http://www.opus-codec.org/license/
  - nullc 12y ago
    Along these lines, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terriberry-ipr-license-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terriberry-ipr-license-00
  - khitchdee 12y ago
    So you're saying in practice copyleft and hence open source doesn't really work, you have to patent and then license for free to protect your users. How does this impact innovation based on the ideas you have patented?
    - derf_ 12y ago
      We've talked about making a GPLv3 release to at least open up the patents we control to all copyleft software. But there are important details to work through, and like most FLOSS projects we have more things to do than people to do them, so it hasn't happened yet. If someone needed it to happen it should be a pretty easy conversation to have. Keep in mind also, our goal is generally to stay out of court. See above about having too much to do.

What are you talking about? Daala is as open as you get.

by lambda 12y ago

What are you talking about? Daala is as open as you get.

khitchdee 12y ago

As I read it, they plan to patent new stuff. See page 9, the third bullet for example.

lambda 12y ago
Read the fourth bullet: "Use a patent license that encourages adoption and discourages defection." It sounds like they are planning on a copyleft-style defensive patent licensing system. Right now, one of the big reasons that open codecs like VP8 and VP9 don't see wider adoption is that there's a lot of FUD thrown around by people saying "they might infringe H.264/HEVC patents, it's too risky to use them without a patent licensing pool." By filing patents of their own, and offering them under a free (libre) license that has a clause causing it to be revoked if you engage in some other related patent litigation, this adds pressure against anyone trying to use their patents against someone using Daala. Not sure how well this would work out in practice; I know that some people have gotten patents under these kinds of defensive open patent licenses before, but I don't know if they've ever been used defensively in practice before.
- sitkack 12y ago
  I wish we could easily get anti-patent patents.
- pcwalton 12y ago
  Note that this is simply following the successful model of Opus: http://www.opus-codec.org/license/ http://www.opus-codec.org/license/
- nullc 12y ago
  Along these lines, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terriberry-ipr-license-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terriberry-ipr-license-00
- khitchdee 12y ago
  So you're saying in practice copyleft and hence open source doesn't really work, you have to patent and then license for free to protect your users. How does this impact innovation based on the ideas you have patented?
  - derf_ 12y ago
    We've talked about making a GPLv3 release to at least open up the patents we control to all copyleft software. But there are important details to work through, and like most FLOSS projects we have more things to do than people to do them, so it hasn't happened yet. If someone needed it to happen it should be a pretty easy conversation to have. Keep in mind also, our goal is generally to stay out of court. See above about having too much to do.