[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] VP8 de/encode via libvpx

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 08:52:43PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>
>> On May 19, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 00:20 +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>>> James Zern <jzern at google.com> writes:
>>>>> + * ?necessarily infringed by this implementation of VP8. If You
>>>>> or your
>>>>> + * ?agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the
>>>>> + * ?institution of patent litigation against any entity
>>>>> (including a
>>>>> + * ?cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
>>>>> + * ?implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
>>>>> + * ?implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
>>>>> + * ?infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any
>>>>> rights
>>>>> + * ?granted to You under this License for this implementation of
>>>>> VP8
>>>>> + * ?shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
>>>>> + */
>>>>
>>>> This licence is probably not compatible with the GPL, specifically
>>>> clauses 6 and 7:
>>>
>>> If you're talking about the patent clause, then I think it's not
>>> compatible with GPL 2 but probably is compatible with GPL 3.
>>
>> Doesn't v3 require a grace period?...
>
> Come on, please just read the license instead of making wild claims..

Section 8:

"You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11)."

[..]

"Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice."

Notice the last sentence, "30 days". Any shorter is a limitation that
is GPLv3-incompatible and thus voids the license. (BTW I'm discussing
the patent license with SFLC so you may draw your own conclusions from
whatever I say until I forward an official response from SFLC.)

Ronald