SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2018

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
David Sommerseth <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 00:49:49 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
On 21/01/18 18:42, Dan wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I'm vaguely aware that the standard SL (and presumably RHEL)
> repositories don't contain any decoder for the H264 video codec,
> because someone, somewhere considers the codec to be too heavily
> patent-encumbered to distribute the decoder.  I'm also vaguely aware
> that some other GNU/Linux distros _do_ distribute H264 decoders.  Does
> anyone have any information about _why_ different distros have
> reached different decisions about this question of law, please?

Red Hat has grown to become a large and rich enterprise.  So for them to
gamble on possible patents hits, patent holders requiring royalties, etc, it
makes sense to have a clean separation from potential issues.  When also
considering the vast amount of users both Fedora and Red Hat based products
covers, this gets a bit clearer (IMO, at least).

Debian has a similar approach as well, even though you can enable some
"non-free" repositories where you get a lot of these codecs.  Similar for
Ubuntu as well, even though Ubuntu tends to ship with these repositories
enabled by default.  But attacking Debian or Ubuntu is a very different type
of legal attack than on an established US enterprise.

Regardless of the emotional side of things.  Many of these various codecs
_are_ patent encumbered, many also requires agreements and royalty fees to use
and distribute. And any other means of using those codecs are in violation.
You can question whether these patents are valid and if you must obey these
patents; but that's more a discussion for legal counsellors.

However, there is an alternative which resolves this in a clean way.  Fluendo
(the company behind GStreamer) have their ONEPLAY Codec pack [1], which costs
€20.  Support agreement (including updates to their codec pack) starts at €19
for a 5 years agreement.  I consider this reasonable.  I've also used their
codecs, and it feels more stable and somewhat better performing than several
of the "free" alternatives.

[1] <https://fluendo.com/en/oneplay/>

The quickest shortcut around all this without any costs is probably to get the
VLC player.

Just my 2cents.


-- 
kind regards,

David Sommerseth

ATOM RSS1 RSS2