I dont think its anything to do with NDAs, the issue for opensource projects is not about the code being open, but the cost if the license fee for using H.264. And certainly there may be an issue with them not being able to control how many copies of their OS/app are out there due to allowing everyone to redistribute it, although there may be an arrangement where they can just pay one fee regardless of exactly how many users there are, although this fee would likely be very large indeed.
As for the commercial use issues, there is far more pragmatism than the language of the license might suggest. If you dont charge for your stuff now then its not an issue until at least 2016. If you do charge then it is an issue already. For the grey areas such as whether advertising counts, its likely that the burden falls on the video host, although again there are some grey areas that currently dont matter but in a strict legal sense may theoretically matter. As I mentioned when I first responded to the post about that article, it does raise some interesting issues, Im not trying to dismiss all of them completely. Im just saying it went well over the top, but I suppose if thats what it takes to get peple to pay attention then so be it. And dont get me wrong, Im not happy that the state of online video formats has gone this way, Im just keen not to get carried away, to remember what different problems we used to have before H.264 dominated, and to separate the theory from the reality. My view is also coloured by the inevitable legal realities we have due to the state of intellectual property rights in general in the world, and dont get my hopes up that any of the alternatives offer a simple hassle-free alternative. Cheers Steve --- In [email protected], "tom_a_sparks" <tom_a_spa...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > I didn't think OSNews story was "hysterical", I thought it brought up some > > valid points and after reading the Endgaget article there are still very > > valid concerns. > > > > "To repeat the point: as an end user, you'll never have to think about your > > legal liability over H.264, because there's no need for you to be licensed > > unless you're distributing commercial content to other end users or > > building an H.264 encoder. We'd venture a guess and say you're probably > > using a licensed camera and software and uploading to services like YouTube > > or Vimeo or Viddler, and that means you're totally in the clear." > > > > What about the linux/FLOSS communtiy that wont get a license because of the > NDA (Non-disclosure agreement)? > the end-user pays.... > > > So what if you self host your videos and have ads on your site, is that > > commercial use? What if you create a DVD of your independent movie and use > > the codec and then sell the DVD? Have I just distrubuted commercial > > content? ( yeah, I know like the article said, get a lawyer) > > or use bittorrent to distrubuted the video, > > where dose non-commercial use end and commercial use start? >
