On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 11:12:56PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > > The reasons given for closing the ITP were moronic, however there is a > > more pressing problem. ffmpeg is in the same boat as mjpegtools, in > > that it implements algorithms such as mpeg-2 encoders, which are > > patented and aggressively enforced by the patent owners. > > Any examples of such aggressive behaviour? I have been monitoring > ffmpeg since a long time and they have never been threatened. Also, > distributions such as Gentoo or FreeBSD which have worldwide mirrors > are distributing ffmpeg. I think it's a question of the difference between distributing source and binaries. Source code is protected free speech in the US; binaries are not. I don't know the specifics offhand, I just recall mjpegtools falls into this category for having an mpeg-2 encoder. > > Somebody will have to investigate all the algorithms it implements and > > see whether we can get away with distributing it or not > > It will be hard for me to draw the line between a "Save As" or "XOR > cursor" patent and one that can not be distributed, since they are > probably valid only in that totalitarian country between Canada and > Mexico, anyway. The significant difference is whether anybody is seriously trying to pursue the patents or not - some of the mpeg patents are, including the infamous ones on mpeg audio, plus the ones on the recent microsoft stuff (off the top of my head). Actually, that's probably the first one you'll find with issues; ffmpeg uses lame for mp3 encoding, so that's got to go (should be easy). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpNOzt2V_9Tq.pgp
Description: PGP signature