Will H.264 Codec Support Come To Fedora? Nope.

[DaemonFC]

Well, yeah, including them in Fedora is clearly a non-starter.

Fedora used to have that Fluendo "codec buddy" thing that would start when the user tried playing encumbered media formats and tried to sell them this bundle. It was removed in Fedora 9 iirc due to many complaints that it was recommending proprietary software.

Their MP3 codec is an exception. It's available as BSD-licensed source code, but you only get a patent license if you use their binary codec, which is not free/open source. Even though it is "freeware", the only way you can distribute it is in the form of the binary they compiled and that means it has to be huge because it can't statically link to any software under the LGPL or link at all to anything under the GPL, so it's hauling around its own statically linked libc and a bunch of other crap.

I'm sure the proprietary software apologists on this board who have such a sense of entitlement that they think Fedora should be paying $60-some dollars per user for codec packs will turn that around and say it's the fault of the GPL/LGPL for not wanting to give proprietary software companies a handout.

[DaemonFC]

Actually, even if Fedora rescinded its policies on free and open source software, surrendered to the MPEG-LA patent troll, and paid $60-some dollars per user to Fluendo, that would solve only some of the problems.

Fluendo's codecs are only for Gstreamer. Plenty of software is still hardcoded to use Xine, MPlayer, or VLC. (Even KDE software. Kaffeine uses Xine, they're switching to MPlayer. K3B CD ripping needs its own ffmpeg-based plug-in pack. Amarok's transcoder doesn't work without ffmpeg even though it plays back audio using Phonon (which defaults to using Gstreamer). So even though KDE has a way to make applications all use the same multimedia engine, they aren't making good use of it.There's no way to buy a patent license for all this stuff that doesn't use gstreamer because the MPEG-LA patent troll won't agree to sell you one, and even if they did, some programs insist on a private copy of the same framework you already have isntalled which would need its own license. (Even though they probably will be more than happy to sue you for distributing them without a license).

Fluendo's $60-some codec pack obviously has no encoders, only decoders, and they ship an integrated DVD-playback program, not an all-purpose libdvdcss library, so you not only can't encode to any of those formats AFTER paying them the $60-some for a license, but you can't rip your DVDs!

People should just use RPM Fusion and bitch > Congress Critters if they have a problem with the laws of the United States.

[energyman]

Every non-trivial package in the Fedora repositories is covered by tens or sometimes even hundreds of patents. Are you willing to remove all those packages (including the linux kernel) from Fedora?

(Of course not all owners of these patents are hostile and/or request payments, or at least they don't right now.)

simple example: RCU (linux kernel). Patented by: IBM.

[DaemonFC]

simple example: RCU (linux kernel). Patented by: IBM.

If IBM added it or distributed a copy of the kernel with it, they had to give you the rights to use it, including patent licenses. The GPL makes sure of this. BSD-style licenses don't. If you get software under a BSD license, the person who gave it to you can still sue you for using it. The same is true of most permissive licenses, which is why companies like them so much.

[yogi_berra]

I already explained why that isn't true, in excruciating detail, earlier in this thread.

No, you said this:

It's possible to pay for a patent license in a way which allows software freedom to be properly exercised, and some patent holders are actually willing to do this; companies like Red Hat (for whom I work) have done such deals from time to time. It requires the patent holder to grant a perpetual, non-conditional, irrevocable and inheritable license to the patent - a license of a form which allows all the redistribution rights that are usually associated with F/OSS to be exercised.

But the more typical form of patent license, and the form MPEG-LA requires for the codecs it controls patent rights to, is fundamentally incompatible with free software. In these licenses, some body pays for the right to distribute software which uses a patented technique - but that right is not inherited by those to whom the software is distributed. When you buy a copy of Windows, Microsoft pays for a patent license for you for various formats covered by MPEG-LA patents - but that license doesn't include the right for you pass it on. If you copy your copy of Windows and give it to someone else, aside from both of you infringing Microsoft's copyright, you're infringing MPEG-LA's patent. Obviously, this kind of licensing just doesn't work for free software.

Which is a massive cop out. Granted it is a moot cop out because your employer is not in the desktop business, but it is still a cop out.

You cannot buy an H.264 patent license which is compatible with x264's copyright license (i.e. inheritable). MPEG-LA will not sell you one.

There is nothing in the gpl 2 that invalidates a specific patent license for a projects users. That's gpl 3.

[Ansla]

If IBM added it or distributed a copy of the kernel with it, they had to give you the rights to use it, including patent licenses. The GPL makes sure of this. BSD-style licenses don't. If you get software under a BSD license, the person who gave it to you can still sue you for using it. The same is true of most permissive licenses, which is why companies like them so much.

The GPL that enforces the right to use the patents covering the code is v3, while the kernel uses GPLv2. They can very well make a distribution of Linux, sell it to you for a huge premium, then sue you for using it, there is nothing in the kernel's license that prevents this. Though there there are commercial laws that prevent it, so they can only sue you if you bought it from someone else.

[DaemonFC]

The GPL that enforces the right to use the patents covering the code is v3, while the kernel uses GPLv2. They can very well make a distribution of Linux, sell it to you for a huge premium, then sue you for using it, there is nothing in the kernel's license that prevents this. Though there there are commercial laws that prevent it, so they can only sue you if you bought it from someone else.

The GPL 2 requires a patent license for all essential patents for the use of the software. Of course what do I know? I've only read the fucking thing.

[energyman]

If IBM added it or distributed a copy of the kernel with it, they had to give you the rights to use it, including patent licenses. The GPL makes sure of this. BSD-style licenses don't. If you get software under a BSD license, the person who gave it to you can still sue you for using it. The same is true of most permissive licenses, which is why companies like them so much.

pretty much fail The question was not 'does ibm grant a licence' but 'is there patented stuff' and yes, there is patented stuff in linux kernel and linux distributions. A lot of hit. Because of that mess there are patent pools.

The patent mess needs a serious cleanup. And whoever decided that mathematical constructs can be patented needs to be shot.