Re: Ah, another patent encumbered format
I'm perfectly happy with software being paid for running on Open Source platforms, but patenting the codecs such that you can't legally provide them as part of a free (as in free beer) OS puts huge amounts of leverage against projects who want to provide a free OS.
The problem is that if you stay within the law, and don't ship what may become the de-facto standard for video, then something like Linux will always be seen as not for general consumption.
Alternatively, if you ship the codecs as part of a distribution regardless, so that the experience to the end user is good, then MPEG-LA can then demand a payment from you. You have no revenue stream because you are providing the software for free, and cannot pay unless you are Mark Shuttleworth (who paid for an H.264 distribution license for Ubuntu, and got heavily criticised for it).
The problem clauses in the H,264 are the volume, which says something like the distributor has to pay a licence fee per copy deployed if they ship more than 10,000 copies, and the one that says that if you have to pay a fee if you use the encoder to produce commercial videos.
Bearing in mind how viral Linux distributions can be, how do you measure how many times it has been deployed. I download one install image, and use it to install thousands of systems, and offer re-distribution from my web site. How is that measured? And who should pay?
And what qualifies as commercial? If one of my kids record the neighbours cat doing something comical, and upload it to YouTube, and Google attaches adverts, is the video for commercial purposes? Should I pay for the encode? Should Google, even though that may not have encoded it?
Licensing like this is a legal minefield for Open Software since the days of MPEG2 Layer 3 (aka MP3) or GIF. My point is that it would be so much better if the codecs (or even just the algorithms) were available under a permissive license.