On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 23:18 +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > Harald Welte wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > >>> Yeah, I am still patiently awaiting this. Discussions w/ VIA have > >>> gotten me nowhere, as VIA's employees want me to acquire an MPEG LLA > >>> license *before* I can get the code from them, at least last time > >>> that I tried. > > > > Which is exactly in conformance with the MPEG-LA patent license agreement as > > available from http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-agreement.cfm > > > > VIA produces an 'intermediate product' and is not responsible for paying the > > royalties. It is the entity that 'makes a consumer product' which is 'sold > > to > > an end user'. > > > > So if you are the final system integrator who turns VIA's chip plus some > > software into something that actually performs operations that are covered > > by > > the patents held by the MPEG-LA, you need to sign the license agreement with > > MPEG-LA and pay the royalties as per schedule. In this case VIA can be sure > > that you pay the licenses and everything is fine. > > > >>> Perhaps we'll see a shift away from this policy (a la Intel) with the > >>> new open-source releasing that is happening now. > > > > Well, maybe Intel thinks it has sufficient patents itself so that the > > MPEG-LA > > would not sue them, or if they did, Intel has the leverage to countersue. > > > > But as long as you accept that patents are a business reality, and assume > > that > > at least most or many of the MPEG-LA covered patents are real and > > enforcible, > > then anyone, including VIA will have to bow to the license agreement for > > those > > patents. > > > > What I personally believe is the best way to solve the problem is to > > disclose > > documentation on the codec acceleration hardware. This documentation is > > clearly not a consumer product and not sold to an end user. > > > > Then the FOSS community or anyone else can write their hardware accelerated > > decoder, and decide by themselves if they want to expose themselves to the > > legal risk of violating those patents. > > > >> I would not expect the new VIA driver to get any mpeg acceleration > >> capacities in the near future. And they will probably not release any > >> documentation on the Unichrome Pro II mpeg engine anytime soon, both > >> because of the MPEG LA license. It is still unclear to me (and VIA) who > >> should be paying this license fee. > > > > I think it is pretty clear who should be paying it. But it just doesn't > > work > > with software that is freely distributable/copyable, and for which nobody > > knows > > how many copies are floating around and running on some systems. > > > >> I do believe the silicon maker should pay, but VIA rather want to have the > >> driver provider pay as it "enables" the feature. > > > > It is not so much about what any of us believes, but about what the MPEG-LA > > licensing conditions say. I would also prefer if all silicon makers would > > be > > responsible for it. But the industry standard practise (not only for mpeg > > related patents) is different. If you buy a GSM chipset and license its > > firmware from TI (like Openmoko does), then you are still responsible of > > licensing all the GSM related patents by yourself from the respective > > holders. > > > I did not express myself properly here, I obviously mixed the silicon > maker (VIA) with the end-user product (motherboard) maker (which could > well be VIA too when considering the EPIA boards). > Or do you say the end-user product is the software and not the hardware > ? In this case, which software? The driver or the media player ? Or any > other layer of the full software stack running on the hardware ? > It is clear in the case of a standalone dvd player, but it becomes a bit > more complicated when the software is independent from the hardware and > even more complicated when there are different layers in the software > stack. > > >> At any rate, I don't think releasing the hardware documentation would > >> infringe any license/patent, but VIA wants to stay on the safest possible > >> side. > > > > I agree with you, and I'm trying my best to make this change inside VIA. > > > Thanks, your efforts are appreciated :-) > Has there been any movement on this? For 1 year has openchrome support for XVMC on CX700 been frozen over the MPEG-2 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE? This seems like a crime. How many years before the license run out?
_______________________________________________ openchrome-users mailing list [email protected] http://wiki.openchrome.org/mailman/listinfo/openchrome-users Main page: http://www.openchrome.org Wiki: http://wiki.openchrome.org User Forum: http://wiki.openchrome.org/tikiwiki/tiki-view_forum.php?forumId=1
