From: "Roderick Klein" <cwmm-dev@2rosenthals.com>
Message-ID: <65D26C90.2080707@xs4all.nl>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 21:46:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; Warp 4.5; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CWMM Developers Mailing List <cwmm-dev@2rosenthals.com>
Subject: Re: [cwmm-dev] CWMM testing so far with SMplayer and mplayer combined...
References: <list-9213578@2rosenthals.com> <list-9213596@2rosenthals.com> <list-9215079@2rosenthals.com> <list-9215380@2rosenthals.com> <list-9215591@2rosenthals.com> <list-9215735@2rosenthals.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-9215735@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 18-02-24 20:40, Dave Yeo wrote:
> On 02/18/24 10:29 AM, Roderick Klein wrote:
>> On 18-02-24 17:39, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>> On 02/18/24 06:12 AM, Roderick Klein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> AIUI, neither SMPlayer nor MPlayer is problematic to distribute, only
>>>>> some of the codecs.
>>>>
>>>> That is my concern. What codecs can we include and what we cannot
>>>> include ?
>>>>
>>>> Can we include the MP3 codec, I seem to remember we did not include in
>>>> ArcaOS as we where not certain if we could. mp3licensing.com closed up
>>>> shop. But how is that with other audio and video codecs ?
>>>
>>> I don't think the codecs are a concern as they're mostly used for
>>> decoding.
>>
>> Sorry this is not how it works for IP licensing schemes for video/audio
>> codecs, some of them, but most do not make a difference betweeen
>> decoding or encoding for licensing purposes.
>
> While true, the IP license holders most never go after individuals who
> decode, nor decoders in general. Witness the existence of FFMpeg.

I called MP3licensing.com at the time and also the decoder you needed to 
pay. But they did not go after free software such as Linux distro's. 
Even a small company such as Mensys at time had to pay for an MP3 
decoder. I think the one time price you had pay 100.000 Dollar...

>>> Possible exceptions are the newest video codecs such as H265.
>>> Perhaps don't include mencoder.exe if worried about encoding.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The orginal quickmotion and Windows 3.1 video codecs at the time we
>>>> started on MMOS/2 for ArcaOS where removed as well because of possible
>>>> patent issue's.
>
> They're long out of patent protection.

Valid point but also left out because of the unknown. If other patents 
are still valid, we do not know.  In genereal I just consider audio and 
video codecs a patent landmine field.

<SNIP>

>>>>> Why not:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Split the codecs out into their own package.
>>>>
>>>> I am not an mplayer expert. But I just have a single mplayer exe file,
>>>> no codec directory with files. But if you split off the codecs what are
>>>> you left with ?
>>>
>>> MPlayer currently includes FFmpeg which by itself covers most codecs,
>>> demuxers etc, so there is little need for the old Windows codecs.
>>> What is possibly illegal is the code to crack DVD's. Whether anyone
>>> cares now a days, I don't know. Some Linux's used to download from
>>> Europe to avoid problems. At least Mint doesn't seem to do that anymore.
>>
>> The big difference is that most Linux distro's are available free of
>> charge. ArcaOS is a commercial project and that changes the whole
>> discussion.
>>
>
> Well that's an argument for not including MPlayer or FFmpeg on the
> ArcaOS ISO or advertising that it supports ripping DVD's and such.
> As it is, ArcaOS includes the Mozilla browsers that can play licensed
> codecs if a user does "yum install ffmpeg-libs" (might be a legacy
> package now) as well as Qt5, which enables various media players/web
> browsers to also use licensed codecs.

Indeed one codec is free for usage in the browser? I do not know if this 
includes stand alone media players.

> Seems that if Arca Noae doesn't actually ship any licensed codecs, just
> directions on how to install them along with a disclaimer that the user
> has to check local laws, it would be the user installing the codecs that
> are responsible. Helps too if the codecs are hosted somewhere other then
> America, though as it is,

The US I think has the biggest issue with low quality software patents. 
This includes video codecs. I once talked ta guy from the JPF board and 
he says just like with medication certain video codecs, with small 
changes get re-patented after an old patent has expired.
This website shows the extreme cases:
https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month

That said the EU its patent system also has pretty louzy examples
of patents that are to obvious and should have never been granted in the 
first place.

>Lewis is hosting mirrors that contain licensed
> codecs.

If hosting the codecs can be a problem since 2rosenthals and Arca Noae 
is not a none profit :-) That said the changes are small of getting 
caught. But it could be an expensive endavour...

> Also see https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html scroll down to the Patent
> mini-faq, seems the problems happen when companies try making money
> using patented technologies.

I called when I worked on eCS severeal companies about licensing 
audio/video. And the problem is indeed if you include a patented in a 
commercial product, they will expect you to pay for it. I think 
hobbes,nmsu.edu shows why its not an issue to provide to host video 
players if no money is made with it :-)

Roderick