On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Info || Non-Lethal Applications < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 12:47, Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> wrote: > > Info || Non-Lethal Applications <info@...> writes: > > I have a question about the DNxHD/VC-3 decoder included > in libavcodec. I’d like to use it in a commercial product > and I’m not sure if this is allowed. > > > What makes you think that we distribute software that we > don't want you to use? > > > My point is not that I’m not allowed to use it at all but the part > COMMERCIAL. > > It was my understanding that the VC-3 codec is open > source so I thought I could use it. > > > libavcodec is open source software distributed under the > terms of the LGPL: Usage is not limited (except for "no > warranty") but distribution is only allowed under the > terms of the LGPL. > > > I read this: https://lab.apertus.org/T91 which is reportedly an AVID > original email. > An excerpt: > > "A patent license is required for use of VC-3 as it falls under the DNxHD > patents. The patent license grants you the right to use and even distribute > the technology but, in no way can you reference the technology in the > product as Avid, Avid DNxHD, DNX, etc. when it is from an open source. The > use of VC-3 falls under the same schedule of royalty reporting under the > patent license. In order to market your product as DNxHD from VC-3, Avid > would need to test the product and a $10,000 fee for testing would be > applied.” > > Can you or anyone else tell me how this “patent license” is handled with > FFmpeg and LGPL? > Also, this doesn’t differentiate between encoder/decoder as well as open > source or commercial. > This led me to think that all use of VC-3 might possibly be restricted. > > It also specifically names FFmpeg: > "Any ffmpeg implementation is considered a subset of Avid DNxHD and would > be subject to testing verification in addition to the royalties.” > > What ‘royalties’ are they talking about? > > Any insight is much appreciated! > > Best, > > Flo > > I do not know exactly who handles royalties for VC-3. For mpeg2, vc-1 and a few others this is done by the MPEG Licensing Authority ( http://www.mpegla.com/). Regardless of the implementation (probably depending on where you want to sell it) you have to comply to patent regulations which in many cases means paying a patent fee. For many use cases this may be very little money (for h264 there is a huge number of copies of your software that you can distribute without paying, for mpeg2 it was something like 5$ per copy, iirc). If you license a commercial third-party library, they in some cases have already done that for you but in other cases (e.g. licensing x264) and for non-commercial open source software you have to do that yourself to stay legal. IANAL but probably somewhat in the same boat, so doublecheck anything I wrote. It may all be wrong. Don't consider it sound legal advice. If you find out, who's handling VC-3/DNxHD patents, please post it (probably best) or mail me privately. Best, Robert
_______________________________________________ Libav-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-user
