Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

[Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]>]

On 03/14/2013 01:39 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
>> I talked about this with direct answers from the MPEG-LA here:
>> http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/
> Interesting - I hadn't realized their license was as viral to 'derivative' works as GPLv3.
>
> So does this mean if a mobile phone vendor had the license for H.264 in their hardware encoder/decoder, and provided an API to applications to use that hardware, that any application using the API would also be a new end-product and have to acquire the license as well?
>
> Likewise, if a web-based app framework such as PhoneGap/Titanium/etc. acquired a license for H.264 and provided an API for using it to their customers'(the app creators) code, that their customers (the app creators) would also need to get the license?
>
> -hadriel
Hadriel,

If you read the documentation that comes with your, for example, AVCHD
camcorder, you'll see that the licensee (the hardware manufacturer) can
give to their users is a private, non-commericial license to the usage
of the encoded media produced by it.  Windows users, as well, are
granted a license via Microsoft to the usage of the decoder shipped with
the OS for the same limited usages.  Commercial usages beyond this would
seem to require an additional license (e.g., a paid performance where an
H.264 video is played on a Windows machine, perhaps?).

I don't know what to say about the other issues you've raised.  IANAL
and such. :)  Such questions may be directed to MPEG-LA.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org