WebM Licensing Problems Resolved 89
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.'"
Re:So its still GPL incompatible because its BSD . (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And the patent license?
Re: (Score:2)
It's gone. The license IS 3 clause BSD. You are permitted to use and copy per the BSD license terms. There is now an additional patent grant from Google. They let you use their patents related to WebM as long as you follow the terms in the patent grant (and those were very carefully crafted to be compatible with GPL3 and Apache conditions). Moreover the patent grant does not take away the rights premitted say in GPL2, so there is no trouble there ot with LGPL2 either.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it looks incompatible to me, but as you pointed out, its on their page of compatible licenses so it'd be really hard to go after anyone for doing so.
I stand corrected.
Re: (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 dis
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking about the 3-clause BSD license. Which is not used in this case.
Also 3-clause BSD is compatible with GPL3.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an exact BSD license...
Advertising clause looks like:
"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software ."
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the clause mentioned here [berkeley.edu]? The one that hasn't been a part of the BSD license since 1999? That advertising clause?
Except for the name of the organization, the WebM license is word-for-word identical to the license currently used by the primary copyright owners of the product known as "BSD". If that's not "an exact BSD license", then I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
BSD is actually less restrictive. While it requires attribution, it doesn't require that derivative work be released under BSD, while GPL requires that derivative work maintain the GPL license.
This allows entities to make non-free software based on WebM, which GPL would not allow. I'm not sure why you're stating it as obvious fact that BSD isn't "good enough", though.
Re: (Score:2)
BSD is actually less restrictive. While it requires attribution, it doesn't require that derivative work be released under BSD, while GPL requires that derivative work maintain the GPL license.
I don't believe this is true of the GPL. If you modify GPL code or make a derivative work thereof, you are the copyright holder of your changes. AFAIK, your modifications just need to be licensed under some GPL-compatible license, at least as far as the distribution restrictions of the GPL apply. So your modifications don't necessarily have to be licensed under the exact terms and conditions of the GPL, just a compatible license.
Of course, the common thing to do to keep things simple is to release you
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, at least not for GPL v2
Clause 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Emphasis mine.
I haven't read GPLv3 in detail though.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Your information is out of date. They're using the new and simplified BSD license, which is GPL compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL requires you to include the copyright notices, thus give attribution. Check section: 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies. Same if you modify the code, you need to provide your copyright info. The GPL isn't a license that says "do what you want, but provide source", particularly v3. And the BSD license (modern) is fully compatible with the GPL, according to the FSF, who would be considered the authority here.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I'm pretty sure the GPL requires that you don't remove the copyright notice from things too. You're probably a decade out-of-date, and thinking of the pre-1999 BSD license, which included a clause requiring attribution in any advertising material for the software as well. Practically nobody uses the old BSD licence for new softw
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the BSD license requires you to include attribution kind of makes it incompatible with GPL since that is an 'additional restriction' which GPL forbids.
From the GPL:
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
Try again.
Indeed
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
This is done with programmable DSPs these days, which means making them do WebM is not going to be a huge hurdle.
Re: (Score:2)
Technicallly it's not a huge hurdle, it's getting companies to do it that's the hard part. Why give consumers a firmware upgrade that adds features when you can make them buy a newer product to get the ability? (See Android on mobiles, etc...)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Technicallly it's not a huge hurdle, it's getting companies to do it that's the hard part. Why give consumers a firmware upgrade that adds features when you can make them buy a newer product to get the ability? (See Android on mobiles, etc...)
Because then you don't need to give MPEG-LA any of your money in license fees?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
LMAO.
Do you honestly think companies are going to start removing h264 support from products and replacing it with WebM support because of a piddly licensing fee? The cost of the licensing fee is simply passed on to consumers and is justified with the bullet point on the product features list of "Plays back h264". Given the choice between a product and another one of similar specs that includes native playback of it I'll gladly pay
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is done with programmable DSPs these days
I feel that term conveys the wrong meaning to most readers.
Modern DSPs are just like CPUs. They load up code, and they execute it. It's not like microcontrollers where the chips have firmware and need to be reprogrammed. You can bundle GPU code in the same exe, and you can also bundle DSP code. The OS just has to know what to do with it - where to send it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not for a long time. Aside from all the video that have to be converted, browsers that support it need to see a widespread adoption before websites have a reason to use it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It shouldn't take long, Firefox, Chrome and Opera have nightly builds with support for it and IE can support it through Chrome Frame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should see VLC and the like binaries that support WebM distributed today or tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is already serving some videos with WebM and HTML5, as well as h.264.
Re: (Score:2)
When do we start seeing extensive adoption of WebM and ditching of the H.264 and others?
When devices with Android 2.3 and ChromeOS hit the shelves, I'd imagine.
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: (Score:2)
Actually, the GPL is very business friendly - it ensures they can release their code as OSS, and their competitors can't use it unless they do the same.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Man, you just live to pimp that blog of yours whenever this topic comes up, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still no patent-related indemnification (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still no patent-related indemnification (Score:4, Informative)
What rewards?
If it takes off, they'll control it effectively. Theoretically, others could fork it, but they'll have the expertise and the brand and the strategic partnerships in place to be the driving force. They've explained recently that they also expect huge benefits in the future from Android (similar situation as with WebM).
How is Google not a commercial adopter of WebM?
A producer, like I explained above. A producer eating its own dog food, which is normal ;-)
How often do companies provide indemnification for complex software?
In commercial licensing agreements that's the standard thing. In this case we talk about an open-source-style license that is, however, meant to be the basis for commercial adoption.
How often do they charge nothing for it?
You're basically saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" but as I explained, there are business interests involved, so this is anything but an act of charity.
How is this any different then paying MPEG LA for essentially the same guarantees, but with more hooks and complexities?
I'm not sure I understand this question well enough to answer it. H.264 is in extremely widespread commercial use, so there are strong indications that a license from MPEG LA is, in all likelihood, sufficient protection. With WebM there's some uncertainty, including that MPEG LA said it's considering putting together a patent pool for WebM...
Re:Still no patent-related indemnification (Score:5, Informative)
None of the MPEG-LA licensing stuff offers indemnification.
MPEG-LA is just using that WebM patent pool for FUD.
Correct (Score:4, Insightful)
If you read their page they specifically deny any indemnification. They note you won't be sued by and of the MPEG-LA members, of course, but if there are other patents, well you are on your own. So supposing Google held a patent over something H.264 uses and decided to sue you, well you'd be SOL and have to defend it yourself.
You only tend to find indemnification clauses in the case of very large companies, and then when the more or less developed the technology themselves are fare fairly confident that they hold all the cards.
So no, there's no indemnification of WebM. However what you do have is Google's statement that they carefully checked VP8 before and after buying On2 and they think it is clear. Google is the one company that has the resources to conduct a search like that efficiently, and they have good reason not to release this unless they are confident, as they will for sure be someone that would get sued as they have lots of money.
Also, their patent revocation license means that people might have trouble suing over WebM. So say Sony decides to sue. However it turns out their laptops have an ATi graphics chip in them that accelerates WebM (ATi has said they are going to do that). Well Sony has now lost the right to those patents and is open to countersuit. Nothing they can easily do about it, either, as nVidia is also in with WebM.
Google seems pretty confident they are in the clear, I think it is reasonable for everyone else to feel confident.
Re: (Score:2)
How does Google "control" it? The spec is done. The spec is entirely open and free. What's Google going to actually do to exercise this supposed "control"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of that sounds like a problem in any practical way at all. You're going to have to be more specific.
Re: (Score:1)
I produce shit but I certainly don't eat it. (I have a toilet slave for that).
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Must you post that FUD in every single Theora- and WebM-related topic *ever*? what you're asking for is something that, quite honestly, would be so fucking dangerous to Google that no company, I repeat, NO company in the industry would even dare *suggest* something of the sort.
And that's without comparing them to MPEG-LA, whose licensing terms are so fucking shallow that they don't even protect you from *them* if you happen to use a patent of theirs not included in the tiny list your MPEG4 license pays for,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they already are with h.264?
No one gives indemnification for this sort of thing. This is a risk anyone who ever hosts video takes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they're already exposed to risks of the sort by every other piece of software they've ever used. If you don't want that then you should be campaigning to abolish software patents, not be spreading FUD against Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you celebrate victory [youtube.com], it seems like you won before the battle started! Google fully cooperates to save the net. Now WebM needs to become the dominant video format. They still have to convince the movie pirates to use the format.
Re: (Score:2)
Google calls into question that it's really sure there aren't going to be any problems.
Can anybody ever be sure there aren't going to be any patent problems with anything? IANAL, but it's my understanding that there is no way to know that someone may have applied for a patent on something until after the patent is granted (which can take years). So, you invent something independently, purely through your own hard work, and proceed with using it, not knowing that someone else may have already applied for a patent on it because that fact is invisible to everyone outside of the USPTO. Then, o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
simply because there are too many patents out there and patent offices grant lots of patents that can be invalidated later based on prior art
No, it's much worse than that. Read my post again.
a large company like Google is in a hugely better position than smaller players to analyze the situation
Google is in a better position to analyze patents that haven't been granted/published yet? Does Google have spies inside the USPTO?
Think about what you are asking for when you demand indemnification. You are asking them to be on the hook for a risk that they cannot accurately assess no matter how much due diligence they perform, because applications for patents not yet granted are not visible to them.
Re: (Score:2)
> Google is in a better position to analyze patents that haven't been
> granted/published yet? Does Google have spies inside the USPTO?
Patent applications are published 18 months after filing. There are no more submarine patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oooooooo that's shaaaaakey.
In any case the indemnification offered by Sun was always the weakest sort, here's a post from the CEO regarding the NetApp/ZFS debacle:
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting_from_a_troll [sun.com]
Basically (from thew point of view of Sun) it was always: you use this Sun stuff, we have a bunch of patents on our IP. If we get sued we take away the those guys rights to use our patents, we may sue them. If you get sued for using our IP by those guys, let us know. If you have any patent
Re:Still no patent-related indemnification (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I think I found text showing there was NO indemnification wrt OMS:
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=420 [conecta.it]
"While we are encouraged by our findings so far, the investigation continues and Sun and OMC cannot make any representations regarding encumbrances or the validity or invalidity of any patent claims or other intellectual property rights claims a third party may assert in connection with any OMC project or work product."
Incidentally the author makes a very good point in this quote:
"Another important aspect is the prior patent search: it is clear (and will be evident a few lines down) that On2 made a patent search to avoid specific implementation details; the point is that noone will be able to see this pre-screening,to avoid additional damages. In fact, one of the most brain damaged things of the current software patent situation is the fact that if a company performs a patent search and finds a potential infringing patent it may incur in additional damages for willful infringement (called “treble damages”). So, the actual approach is to perform the same analysis, try to work around any potential infringing patent, and for those “close enough” cases that cannot be avoided try to steer away as much as possible. So, calling Google out for releasing the study on possible patent infringement is something that has no sense at all: they will never release it to the public."
It seems I need to wait for someone to sue someone or I just consider this FUD at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Your blog discounts the likely possibility that this is lies for the purpose of FUD, or that even if true the FUD is more valuable than actually asserting the patents.
I think the patent allegations are made to slow adoption. But I think indemnification may be still be necessary, because even proving non-infringement is expensive.
I hope if the patent pools manifest, Google sues for a declaration of non-infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it could be disproved it wouldn't make for good FUD, now would it? In fact, what exactly is there to disproof? That they are "considering forming a pool"? They probably are, but that doesn't mean that they can, which they haven't claimed to be able to. They don't say they have patents to form a pool with, which at least would be something that could remotely need proof of the opposite.
But even then they have to actually provide some evidence bef
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I asked at the end of this blog post 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.
YouTube, a short film hosting service operated by Google, is already transcoding its works to WebM alongside H.264. This means Google itself is a commercial adopter of WebM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know you know this, cause I know who Florian Mueller is, but I want to make it clear to the slashdot crowd that Google is granting a royalty free grant to use the patents that they own or will own related to VP8. You only lose this grant if you sue Google in patent court essentially. This is GPL3/Apache style patent clauses.
http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ [webmproject.org]
Now real patent indemnification is very rare, especially the kind where Google would protect you from 3rd party patents. I just wanted to
Re: (Score:2)
At least with webM the initial outlay is zero. And when folks troll about covered by patents, no patent numbers are ever mentioned. Why, because about the only patents that probably do "cover" it will last all of 5min in court by failing even the most lax patentability requirements.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it is perfectly fair, they bought the damn company and are giving away the code and patent licenses.
If you are nervous about it, don't use it. Agitate for other people not to use it. But don't be surprised when they ignore you.
If they did offer indemnity, I expect you would just switch to complaining that it was insufficient, what with the huge risk involved.
I don't understand (Score:2)
> if a patent action was brought against Google, the patent license terminated
This will happen like the next day after WebM becomes semi-relevant.
And the patent issue is the only one of importance, otherwise x264 is the same Open Source too. With much better quality.
great, just what we need. people using this pile (Score:1, Troll)
I'm really annoyed at Google for this bullshit, and the new license is only going to increase adoption of a technology that should have been stillborn.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You can use it without getting sued by Google. It remains to be seen whether anyone else has any claim to bits of the spec.
Re: (Score:2)
A) How can I write *any* software without violating a patent?
B) What OS software is not violating a patent?
The answer to both questions is warped up in many billable patent attorney hours. After you have paid these huge fees (about 50k per patent checked IIRC), it can still be wrong, and its not the attorney's fault and not his/her problem. Hell if someone else wants to know if the patent covers the same thing, that same patent attorney will charge another 50k for that
How many versions will there be in a year? (Score:1)
So in the next year and a half will we expect to see WebM 1.0, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.1 and 2.2?
I can see it now, not being able to watch video on all sites because they use "2.1" and the hardware decoder in your Android phone only supports 1.6 even though it was just released yesterday.
Seriously, is Google the company that we want attempting to control a video standard? Sure they have a lot of smart developers over there, and so far I'm not convinced they can hold back and not change things too often. I
Oops, didn't notice that distinction (Score:2)
The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2 incompatible.
Oops, I at first thought it was GPLv3 compatible because I didn't notice that distinction when I first read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Borrowing language (Score:2)
Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses...
I'm not sure about the Apache license, but the FSF holds the copyright to the GPL itself. Is Google infringing?