I går fikk vi endelig lansert en norsk version av mySocietys -WhatDoTheyKnow. -Tjenesten heter Mimes brønn, og ble -annonsert -av NUUG via blogg, epost og twitter til NUUG-assosierte personer. -Det har tatt noen år, men de siste dagene fikk vi endelig tid til å få -på plass de siste bitene. Vi er to, Gorm og meg selv, som har vært -primus motor for det hele, men vi har fått hjelp med oversettelser og -oppsett fra mange flere. Jeg vil si tusen takk til hver og en av dem, -og er veldig fornøyd med at vi klarte å få tjenesten opp å kjøre før -ferietiden slo inn for fullt.
- -Vi er usikker på hvor mye belastning den virtuelle maskinen der -tjenesten kjører klarer, så vi har lansert litt i det stille og ikke -til for mange folk for å se hvordan maskinen klarer seg over sommeren, -før vi går mer aktivt ut og annonserer til høsten. Ta en titt, og se -om du kanskje har et spørsmål til det offentlige som er egnet å sende -inn via Mimes brønn.
- -Hvis du lurer på hva i alle dager en slik tjenestes kan brukes til, -anbefaler jeg deg å se -TED-foredraget til -Heather Brook om hvordan hun brukte WhatDoTheyKnow til å lære -hvordan offentlige midler ble misbrukt. Det er en inspirerende -historie.
+ +Today, after many years of hard work from many people, +ZFS for Linux finally entered +Debian. The package status can be seen on +the package tracker +for zfs-linux. and +the +team status page. If you want to help out, please join us. +The +source code is available via git on Alioth. It would also be +great if you could help out with +the dkms package, as +it is an important piece of the puzzle to get ZFS working.
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?
+ +Where I set out to figure out which multimedia player in +Debian claim support for most file formats.
+ +A few years ago, I had a look at the media support for Browser +plugins in Debian, to get an idea which plugins to include in Debian +Edu. I created a script to extract the set of supported MIME types +for each plugin, and used this to find out which multimedia browser +plugin supported most file formats / media types. +The +result can still be seen on the Debian wiki, even though it have +not been updated for a while. But browser plugins are less relevant +these days, so I thought it was time to look at standalone +players.
+ +A few days ago I was tired of VLC not being listed as a viable +player when I wanted to play videos from the Norwegian National +Broadcasting Company, and decided to investigate why. The cause is a +missing MIME type in the VLC +desktop file. In the process I wrote a script to compare the set +of MIME types announced in the desktop file and the browser plugin, +only to discover that there is quite a large difference between the +two for VLC. This discovery made me dig up the script I used to +compare browser plugins, and adjust it to compare desktop files +instead, to try to figure out which multimedia player in Debian +support most file formats.
+ +The result can be seen on the Debian Wiki, as +a +table listing all MIME types supported by one of the packages included +in the table, with the package supporting most MIME types being +listed first in the table.
+ +The best multimedia player in Debian? It is totem, followed by +parole, kplayer, mpv, vlc, smplayer mplayer-gui gnome-mpv and +kmplayer. Time for the other players to update their announced MIME +support?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 machine is a complete ARM-based PC with micro HDMI, SATA, USB +plugs and many others connectors, and include a full keyboard and a 5" +LCD touch screen. The 6000mAh battery is claimed to provide a whole +day of battery life time, but I have not seen any independent tests +confirming this. The vendor is still collecting preorders, and the +last I heard last night was that 22 more orders were needed before +production started.
+ +As far as I know, this is the first handheld preinstalled with +Debian. Please let me know if you know of any others. Is it the +first computer being sold with Debian preinstalled?