After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK) -why -they can broadcast and stream H.264 video without an agreement with -the MPEG LA, I was wiser, but still confused. So I asked MPEG LA -if their understanding matched that of NRK. As far as I can tell, it -does not.
- -I started by asking for more information about the various -licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video" class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK -did not need a license for streaming H.264 video: - -
- -- -According to -a -MPEG LA press release dated 2010-02-02, there is no charge when -using MPEG AVC/H.264 according to the terms of "Internet Broadcast AVC -Video". I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video" is, and wondered if you could help me. What -exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?
- -The only source of more information I have been able to find is a -PDF named -AVC -Patent Portfolio License Briefing, which states this about the -fees:
- --
- -- Where End User pays for AVC Video -
- --
- Subscription (not limited by title) â 100,000 or fewer - subscribers/yr = no royalty; > 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr = - $25,000; >250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; >500,000 to - 1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; >1M subscribers/yr = $100,000
- -- Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; >12 minutes in - length = lower of (a) 2% or (b) $0.02 per title
-- Where remuneration is from other sources -
--
- Free Television - (a) one-time $2,500 per transmission encoder or - (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for > 100,000 HH rising to - maximum $10,000 for >1,000,000 HH
- -- Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) - â no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License
-Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the -categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video" is the category for things that do not fall into -one of the other three categories? Can you point me to a good source -explaining what is ment by "title-by-title" and "Free Television" in -the license terms for AVC/H.264?
- -Will a web service providing H.264 encoded video content in a -"video on demand" fashing similar to Youtube and Vimeo, where no -subscription is required and no payment is required from end users to -get access to the videos, fall under the terms of the "Internet -Broadcast AVC Video", ie no royalty for life of the AVC Patent -Portfolio license? Does it matter if some users are subscribed to get -access to personalized services?
- -Note, this request and all answers will be published on the -Internet.
-
The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate -with the MPEG LA:
- --- -Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We -appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.
- -As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License -which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of -the AVC/H.264 Standard (MPEG-4 Part 10). Specifically, coverage is -provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H.264 -technology. Accordingly, the party offering such end products and -video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for -paying the applicable royalties.
- -Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally -defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over -the Internet free-of-charge. Therefore, if a party offers a service -which allows users to upload AVC/H.264 video to its website, and such -AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would -receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC -Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC -License. This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a -free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free -AVC Video content. In other words, as long as the End User is given -access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then -no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.
- -On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a -specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such -video would constitute Subscription AVC Video. In cases where AVC -Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such -content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video. If a party offers -Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would -be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.
- -Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free -through an "over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission", then -such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be -subject to the applicable royalties.
- -For your reference, I have attached -a -.pdf copy of the AVC License. You will find the relevant -sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections 2.2 through -2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section 3.1.2 through 3.1.4. -You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video, -Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet -Broadcast AVC Video in Section 1 of the License. Please note that the -electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot -be used for execution.
- -I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional -questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel -free to contact me directly.
-
Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing -that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made -me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong. -But I still had a few questions:
- --- -I have a small followup question. Would it be possible for me to get -a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid? The -reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright -clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA. The clauses -typically look similar to this: - -
- This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for - the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode - video in compliance with the AVC standard ("AVC video") and/or (b) - decode AVC video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a - personal and non-commercial activity and/or AVC video that was - obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No - license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional - information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C. -- -It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into -an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if -there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA. I suspect it will -differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway. What is -MPEG LAs view on this?
-
According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for -non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:
- -- -- -With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by -clarifying that the Notice from Section 7.1 of the AVC License -reads:
- -THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR -THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT -RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC -STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED -BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM -A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED -OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE -OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM
- -The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the -personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included -with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the -product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become -licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to -deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet -Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party's AVC -Product as their own branded AVC Product).
- -Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC -Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free -Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to -conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were -payable under the License. On the other hand, if that party (either a -Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their -own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced -above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC -Products by the licensed supplier.
- -Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in -countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including -Norway.
- -I hope this clarification is helpful. If I may be of any further -assistance, just let me know.
-
The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I -asked for more information:
- -- -- -But one minor question at the end. If I understand you correctly, -you state in the quote above that there are patents in the AVC Patent -Portfolio that are valid in Norway. This make me believe I read the -list available from <URL: -http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx -> incorrectly, as I believed the "NO" prefix in front of patents -were Norwegian patents, and the only one I could find under Mitsubishi -Electric Corporation expired in 2012. Which patents are you referring -to that are relevant for Norway?
- -
Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents -in that list:
- -- -- -Your understanding is correct that the last AVC Patent Portfolio -Patent in Norway expired on 21 October 2012. Therefore, where AVC -Video is both made and Sold in Norway after that date, then no -royalties would be payable for such AVC Video under the AVC License. -With that said, our AVC License provides historic coverage for AVC -Products and AVC Video that may have been manufactured or Sold before -the last Norwegian AVC patent expired. I would also like to clarify -that coverage is provided for the country of manufacture and the -country of Sale that has active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents.
- -Therefore, if a party offers AVC Products or AVC Video for Sale in -a country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents (for example, -Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.), then that party would still need -coverage under the AVC License even if such products or video are -initially made in a country without active AVC Patent Portfolio -Patents (for example, Norway). Similarly, a party would need to -conclude the AVC License if they make AVC Products or AVC Video in a -country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, but eventually Sell -such AVC Products or AVC Video in a country without active AVC Patent -Portfolio Patents.
-
As far as I understand it, MPEG LA believe anyone using Adobe -Premiere and other video related software with a H.264 distribution -license need a license agreement with MPEG LA to use such tools for -anything non-private or commercial, while it is OK to set up a -Youtube-like service as long as no-one pays to get access to the -content. I still have no clear idea how this applies to Norway, where -none of the patents MPEG LA is licensing are valid. Will the -copyright terms take precedence or can those terms be ignored because -the patents are not valid in Norway?
+ +Making packages for Debian requires quite a lot of attention to +details. And one of the details is the content of the +debian/copyright file, which should list all relevant licenses used by +the code in the package in question, preferably in +machine +readable DEP5 format.
+ +For large packages with lots of contributors it is hard to write +and update this file manually, and if you get some detail wrong, the +package is normally rejected by the ftpmasters. So getting it right +the first time around get the package into Debian faster, and save +both you and the ftpmasters some work.. Today, while trying to figure +out what was wrong with +the +zfsonlinux copyright file, I decided to spend some time on +figuring out the options for doing this job automatically, or at least +semi-automatically.
+ +Lucikly, there are at least two tools available for generating the +file based on the code in the source package, +debmake +and cme. I'm +not sure which one of them came first, but both seem to be able to +create a sensible draft file. As far as I can tell, none of them can +be trusted to get the result just right, so the content need to be +polished a bit before the file is OK to upload. I found the debmake +option in +a +blog posts from 2014. + +
To generate using debmake, use the -cc option: + +
+debmake -cc > debian/copyright ++ +
Note there are some problems with python and non-ASCII names, so +this might not be the best option.
+ +The cme option is based on a config parsing library, and I found +this approach in +a +blog post from 2015. To generate using cme, use the 'update +dpkg-copyright' option: + +
+cme update dpkg-copyright -quiet ++ +
This will create or update debian/copyright. The cme tool seem to +handle UTF-8 names better than debmake.
+ +When the copyright file is created, I would also like some help to +check if the file is correct. For this I found two good options, +debmake -k and license-reconcile. The former seem +to focus on license types and file matching, and is able to detect +ineffective blocks in the copyright file. The latter reports missing +copyright holders and years, but was confused by inconsistent license +names (like CDDL vs. CDDL-1.0). I suspect it is good to use both and +fix all issues reported by them before uploading. But I do not know +if the tools and the ftpmasters agree on what is important to fix in a +copyright file, so the package might still be rejected.
+ +The devscripts tool licensecheck deserve mentioning. It +will read through the source and try to find all copyright statements. +It is not comparing the result to the content of debian/copyright, but +can be useful when verifying the content of the copyright file.
+ +Are you aware of better tools in Debian to create and update +debian/copyright file. Please let me know, or blog about it on +planet.debian.org.
+ +As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my +activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address +15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b.
Several people contacted me after my previous blog post about my -need for a new laptop, and provided very useful feedback. I wish to -thank every one of these. Several pointed me to the possibility of -fixing my X230, and I am already in the process of getting Lenovo to -do so thanks to the on site, next day support contract covering the -machine. But the battery is almost useless (I expect to replace it -with a non-official battery) and I do not expect the machine to live -for many more years, so it is time to plan its replacement. If I did -not have a support contract, it was suggested to find replacement parts -using FrancEcrans, but it -might present a language barrier as I do not understand French.
- -One tip I got was to use the -Skinflint web service to -compare laptop models. It seem to have more models available than -prisjakt.no. Another tip I got from someone I know have similar -keyboard preferences was that the HP EliteBook 840 keyboard is not -very good, and this matches my experience with earlier EliteBook -keyboards I tested. Because of this, I will not consider it any further. - -
When I wrote my blog post, I was not aware of Thinkpad X250, the -newest Thinkpad X model. The keyboard reintroduces mouse buttons -(which is missing from the X240), and is working fairly well with -Debian Sid/Unstable according to -Corsac.net. The reports I -got on the keyboard quality are not consistent. Some say the keyboard -is good, others say it is ok, while others say it is not very good. -Those with experience from X41 and and X60 agree that the X250 -keyboard is not as good as those trusty old laptops, and suggest I -keep and fix my X230 instead of upgrading, or get a used X230 to -replace it. I'm also told that the X250 lack leds for caps lock, disk -activity and battery status, which is very convenient on my X230. I'm -also told that the CPU fan is running very often, making it a bit -noisy. In any case, the X250 do not work out of the box with Debian -Stable/Jessie, one of my requirements.
- -I have also gotten a few vendor proposals, one was -Pro-Star, another was -Libreboot. -The latter look very attractive to me.
- -Again, thank you all for the very useful feedback. It help a lot -as I keep looking for a replacement.
- -Update 2015-07-06: I was recommended to check out the -lapstore.de web shop for used laptops. They got several -different -old -thinkpad X models, and provide one year warranty.
+ +The appstream system +is taking shape in Debian, and one provided feature is a very +convenient way to tell you which package to install to make a given +firmware file available when the kernel is looking for it. This can +be done using apt-file too, but that is for someone else to blog +about. :)
+ +Here is a small recipe to find the package with a given firmware +file, in this example I am looking for ctfw-3.2.3.0.bin, randomly +picked from the set of firmware announced using appstream in Debian +unstable. In general you would be looking for the firmware requested +by the kernel during kernel module loading. To find the package +providing the example file, do like this:
+ ++ ++% apt install appstream +[...] +% apt update +[...] +% appstreamcli what-provides firmware:runtime ctfw-3.2.3.0.bin | \ + awk '/Package:/ {print $2}' +firmware-qlogic +% +
See the +appstream wiki page to learn how to embed the package metadata in +a way appstream can use.
+ +This same approach can be used to find any package supporting a +given MIME type. This is very useful when you get a file you do not +know how to handle. First find the mime type using file +--mime-type, and next look up the package providing support for +it. Lets say you got an SVG file. Its MIME type is image/svg+xml, +and you can find all packages handling this type like this:
+ ++ ++% apt install appstream +[...] +% apt update +[...] +% appstreamcli what-provides mimetype image/svg+xml | \ + awk '/Package:/ {print $2}' +bkchem +phototonic +inkscape +shutter +tetzle +geeqie +xia +pinta +gthumb +karbon +comix +mirage +viewnior +postr +ristretto +kolourpaint4 +eog +eom +gimagereader +midori +% +
I believe the MIME types are fetched from the desktop file for +packages providing appstream metadata.