WebM Licensing Problems Resolved 89
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the that-didn't-take-long dept.
from the that-didn't-take-long dept.
breser writes "The WebM licensing problems have been resolved. The copyright license is straight BSD now, and the patent license is separate and has no impact on the copyright license. Quoting Chris DiBona: 'As it was originally written, if a patent action was brought against Google, the patent license terminated. This provision itself is not unusual in an OSS license, and similar provisions exist in the 2nd Apache License and in version 3 of the GPL. The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2 incompatible. Also, in doing this, we effectively created a potentially new open source copyright license, something we are loath to do. Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses, in this new iteration of the patent clause we've decoupled patents from copyright, thus preserving the pure BSD nature of the copyright license. This means we are no longer creating a new open source copyright license, and the patent grant can exist on its own.'"
Still no patent-related indemnification (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no doubt that Google has made an effort to make its licensing terms more consistent and compatible with existing FOSS licenses. Maybe some of this could have been resolved beforehand if Google had talked to such organizations as the OSI and FSF.
But one important problem remains even with the new licensing terms: there's no indemnification or holding harmless in the event of patent-related problems. I asked at the end of this blog post [blogspot.com] whether it would be fair for Google to reap most of the rewards if WebM becomes a success while the commercial adopters of WebM would bear the risk in case things go wrong on the patent front. By not even providing some basic indemnification, Google calls into question that it's really sure there aren't going to be any problems.
Re:Still no patent-related indemnification (Score:5, Interesting)
What is your response to the assertion that multimedia isn't the patent minefield that everyone wants to (make us) believe [xiph.org]?
There are now different positions on WebM. In my blog post I actually mention all of them, including (in an update) Carlo Daffara's analysis, which is rather optimistic about WebM not infringing MPEG LA's patents. I never said that it does, but I admit that MPEG LA's statement that it may put together a WebM patent pool is nothing that I would advise anyone to discount as a possible scenario.
What I do say is that Google will have the biggest benefit if this works out, hence I believe it would be reasonable for Google to provide not just vague assurances but a detailed analysis of the patent situation and some form of indemnification. One key difference between H.264 and WebM is that H.264 is already used in countless commercial products, so if anyone could assert any rights against it, it normally should have happened, while VP8 has so far had much less market penetration but if it became (like some propose) part of HTML 5, then this could change overnight and result in patent enforcement.
Re:Still no patent-related indemnification (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not so much different, as in line with what has been voiced in regards to avoidance of software patents by Tridge and the Xiph developers. It's in line with Adobe distributing VP6 in Flash without any apparent problems. Who besides MPEG LA (bias obvious), Apple (heavily invested in H.264 infrastructure, favorable licensing terms as a pool member) and x264 devs (heavily invested in H.264, not concerned about patent details) has actually voiced the former positions?
Don't forget that Vorbis is part of the spec, Fraunhofer is about to strike any day now.
Re:So its still GPL incompatible because its BSD . (Score:1, Interesting)
It is incompatible; the BSD license includes a license reproduction demand, and this is in violation of the no additional restrictions of the GPL. GPL-fans tend to say that this is OK because the GPL requires a copyright and disclaimer; however, the requirement of a *specific* copyright notice is actually a significant extra requirement. Think about including 1000 different pieces of open source software (e.g, because you're using an operating system) and having to include text from each of these, and distributing where you can't include an electronic version. It's the difference between 10 pages (GPL) and 1000 pages (one each of the different licenses.)
I've had the problem when basing off BSD operating systems. It is actually substantial.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
H264 (and it's licensing fees) is here to stay.
And it'll be WebM (and it's licensing fees) once the MPEG LA pulls a test case in court against a major WebM user. Half their patents are so vague that Winzip probably violates them - all they need is a court to agree that one of their hundreds of patents covers WebM, and the whole thing blows up.
And you can guarantee that the idiocy that is the Courts of the District of Eastern Texas will agree that WebM is covered.