IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc., [TOS #5: split from “Open Source Fraunhofer AAC Encoder”/thread 95989]
Garf
post Jul 12 2012, 21:56
Post #1


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (saratoga @ Jul 12 2012, 22:01) *
Off hand I can't think of any that force you to also provide patent licenses to go with the software license, since in practice that would be almost impossible to know which patents were covered and which were not.


GPL includes a patent license for all patents you own and apply to the software. You'd obviously know which of your own patents applies.

At least in GPL3 there are also provisions that block you from relying on a patent license to be able to convey a work covered by one. (But I find the clauses a bit strange because they are null as long as you also convey source code - which the GPL requires you anyway?)

But yes, no open source license requires you to acquire licenses for any patent the software might infringe before you can distribute it - because that's obviously impossible.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Jul 12 2012, 22:03
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (D404 @ Jul 11 2012, 18:02) *
Edit: Obvious patent violation removed.

This post has been edited by Garf: Yesterday, 20:30

QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 12 2012, 22:56) *
GPL includes a patent license for all patents you own and apply to the software. You'd obviously know which of your own patents applies.

At least in GPL3 there are also provisions that block you from relying on a patent license to be able to convey a work covered by one. (But I find the clauses a bit strange because they are null as long as you also convey source code - which the GPL requires you anyway?)

But yes, no open source license requires you to acquire licenses for any patent the software might infringe before you can distribute it - because that's obviously impossible.

So why posting a link to a compiled avconv is a patent violation but posting a link to its source code isn't ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jul 12 2012, 22:19
Post #3


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Jul 12 2012, 23:03) *
So why posting a link to a compiled avconv is a patent violation but posting a link to its source code isn't ?


Ask the people who make the laws. The reasoning is (AFAIK/IANAL) that source code itself doesn't actually do anything, so it can't infringe.

See for example:
Does LAME use any MP3 patented technology?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jul 13 2012, 00:01
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 5147
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Jul 12 2012, 17:03) *
So why posting a link to a compiled avconv is a patent violation but posting a link to its source code isn't ?


Because text and speech are covered by copyright, while functional devices are covered by patents. The source code itself cannot be patented, and so you are free to use it. The compiled binary, however, would contain patented technology in many countries, and so is difficult for some people to distribute.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Jul 13 2012, 12:30
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



QUOTE (saratoga @ Jul 13 2012, 01:01) *
QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Jul 12 2012, 17:03) *
So why posting a link to a compiled avconv is a patent violation but posting a link to its source code isn't ?


Because text and speech are covered by copyright, while functional devices are covered by patents. The source code itself cannot be patented, and so you are free to use it. The compiled binary, however, would contain patented technology in many countries, and so is difficult for some people to distribute.


What if the source code is written in a interpreted language?

Is it always legal.
If the code is written in (e.g Python) and had a script with a python #! , does it become illegal?

Thankfully, we don't have any of this patent absurdity where I live.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Jul 13 2012, 12:34
Post #6





Group: Developer
Posts: 1453
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



QUOTE (2012 @ Jul 13 2012, 13:30) *
What if the source code is written in a interpreted language?


Following that logic, your Python code still does nothing without the python binary, but that's a bullshit argument IMO.


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Jul 13 2012, 13:05
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



QUOTE (skamp @ Jul 13 2012, 13:34) *
QUOTE (2012 @ Jul 13 2012, 13:30) *
What if the source code is written in a interpreted language?


Following that logic, your Python code still does nothing without the python binary, but that's a bullshit argument IMO.


I was ready for that argument wink.gif

How is depending on a 3rd-party binary (python interpreter) different from depending on a 3rd-party library?
Does that mean sharing static binaries is definitely illegal! But sharing binaries that depend on shared libraries might be okay because those binaries can't just function on their own!

This post has been edited by 2012: Jul 13 2012, 13:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 13 2012, 13:11
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



See:
QUOTE (saratoga @ Jul 12 2012, 23:01) *
Because text and speech are covered by copyright, while functional devices are covered by patents. The source code itself cannot be patented, and so you are free to use it. The compiled binary, however, would contain patented technology in many countries, and so is difficult for some people to distribute.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Jul 13 2012, 13:27
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



Let me rephrase the question.

If you run software written in an interpreted language. Where is the patented technology contained exactly?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LithosZA
post Jul 13 2012, 13:54
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 26-February 11
Member No.: 88525



QUOTE
Let me rephrase the question.

If you run software written in an interpreted language. Where is the patented technology contained exactly?


In memory? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Jul 13 2012, 14:31
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 12 2012, 23:19) *
Ask the people who make the laws. The reasoning is (AFAIK/IANAL) that source code itself doesn't actually do anything, so it can't infringe.
See for example:
Does LAME use any MP3 patented technology?

QUOTE (saratoga @ Jul 13 2012, 01:01) *
Because text and speech are covered by copyright, while functional devices are covered by patents. The source code itself cannot be patented, and so you are free to use it. The compiled binary, however, would contain patented technology in many countries, and so is difficult for some people to distribute.


I still don't understand why it is a problem for this forum, as the file wasn't an attachment but a link to another server. So if it's the responsibility of this forum to avoid such links, then we shouldn't post any links about apps like ffmpeg, MEncoder, VLC, Handbrake, Avidemux, etc, which are all using several encoders therefore they are all potential patent violators. Tutorials and wiki pages about the use of LAME, Nero AAC, QTaac, Aften with foobar or EAC or any other similar app should be removed as well. And even references to freewares like XVI32 should be removed because who knows if it's violating a patent or not ! In fact any binary might be evil.

Finally, ripping music, even for archival purposes, of CD/DVD/BD you have bought is now illegal in many countries.
So at then end let's close down this forum, and many other ones, because it is now proven it's useless as we can't talk about things we can't use !

/irony

Legally speaking, I believe it is the final user's responsibility to check if some features of a given app are allowed or not in his country. This is the reason why binaries of many multimedia apps are available on various sites and IMHO linking to these sites cannot be a patent violation itself as it's solely under the final user's responsibility to use the binary or not.

Anyway, I got the binary in time before its link was removed and we are still free to use PMs biggrin.gif wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lameboy
post Jul 13 2012, 16:26
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 3-September 08
Member No.: 57866



If I understand correctly, Rarewares' server is located in Brazil, which doesn't have as strict patent laws as the US/EU.

So, if they can host LAME binaries, can't they also host this Fraunhofer AAC binary?
(the last MP3 patent expires in 2017 I think. AAC patents probably last much longer. Anyone know how long?)

This post has been edited by lameboy: Jul 13 2012, 16:28


--------------------
XLD // ALAC // OGG VORBIS
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 13 2012, 17:14
Post #13





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



If Garf doesn’t mind me paraphrasing something he wrote elsewhere: Yes, Roberto used to own and run RareWares from Brazil, whose legal landscape he cited as defence of his hosting items that might raise issues elsewhere. However, the current owner is based somewhere else, where no such evasion is tenable. The implications of this for Hydrogenaudio are up to its administrators.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jul 13 2012, 18:39
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 5147
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (2012 @ Jul 13 2012, 07:30) *
If the code is written in (e.g Python) and had a script with a python #! , does it become illegal?


Most likely it would come down to how you presented it, and what you intended to do. If you intended to exercise your freedom of speech by discussing code, educating people about the code, or publicly developing code, you would likely be ok. If you clearly had no interest in how the code worked and were just trying to distribute a means to play files, then a judge may take issue with that.

In practice, interpreted audio decoders are largely impractical as music players, so I doubt this would ever come up.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jul 13 2012, 20:07
Post #15


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Jul 13 2012, 15:31) *
I still don't understand why it is a problem for this forum, as the file wasn't an attachment but a link to another server.


Linking to illegal material unfortunately leads to problems for the site administrators.

QUOTE
So if it's the responsibility of this forum to avoid such links, then we shouldn't post any links about apps like ffmpeg, MEncoder, VLC, Handbrake, Avidemux, etc, which are all using several encoders therefore they are all potential patent violators.


I don't know every last one of them, but for example Handbrake doesn't include the encoders. It asks the user to download them with a mention about the patent situation. VLC doesn't include any encoders, which seems to help not to get any lawyers at your door.

QUOTE
Tutorials and wiki pages about the use of LAME, Nero AAC, QTaac, Aften with foobar or EAC or any other similar app should be removed as well.


Talking about them isn't illegal, as was already explained. But your examples show that you fully fail to grasp the point anyway: Nero AAC for example is fully legal because Nero paid the licensing for you. QTaac is prolly legal too if it doesn't violate Apple's (copyright) license. EAC itself is also fully legal. You can get legal LAME for example with dbPowerAmp (spoon paid for the patent license). Don't know about the others.

QUOTE
And even references to freewares like XVI32 should be removed because who knows if it's violating a patent or not ! In fact any binary might be evil.


You want us to remove everything until proven innocent? Is this even an argument or are you just failing badly at trolling?

QUOTE
Finally, ripping music, even for archival purposes, of CD/DVD/BD you have bought is now illegal in many countries.


It's legal where HA is hosted, as long as you don't bypass copyright protection.

QUOTE
So at then end let's close down this forum, and many other ones, because it is now proven it's useless as we can't talk about things we can't use !


You're free to set up your own forum and break any law you want on it. I won't link to it and wish you good luck to survive as long as HA has.

QUOTE
Legally speaking, I believe it is the final user's responsibility to check if some features of a given app are allowed or not in his country.


No. (You don't need to do much more than read the technical news over the last 6 months to realize that isn't true)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jul 13 2012, 20:22
Post #16


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (lameboy @ Jul 13 2012, 17:26) *
the last MP3 patent expires in 2017 I think.


Not all "essential" patents are truly essential to make a working, not-top-notch-quality stereo encoder and decoder. I made an overview here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key...lYUlpxS2c#gid=0

I think you can make a patent-free MP3 decoder end of next year. Near the end of 2014 you can make an encoder that doesn't suck. (IANAL)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Jul 14 2012, 10:24
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 13 2012, 21:07) *
...

We are talking about links to binaries. VLC does include encoders, it does, all of them, out of the box, just try it yourself. So does ffmpeg and MEncoder and it's easy to find links to these binaries, and other ones like LAME and Aften, on many wiki pages / tutorials / forum threads.
I don't see how a link to a binary of avconv is more an obvious patent violation than any other link to a binary of ffmpeg or LAME which are easy to find out on this domain.


QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 13 2012, 21:07) *
QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Jul 13 2012, 15:31) *
And even references to freewares like XVI32 should be removed because who knows if it's violating a patent or not ! In fact any binary might be evil.

You want us to remove everything until proven innocent? Is this even an argument or are you just failing badly at trolling?

I'm sure you have noticed the /irony tag that came right after that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Jul 14 2012, 10:50
Post #18





Group: Developer
Posts: 562
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (saratoga @ Jul 14 2012, 02:39) *
In practice, interpreted audio decoders are largely impractical as music players, so I doubt this would ever come up.

Sorry for interrupting by off-topic posting... but it looks like there are some pure JavaScript audio decoder imprementations:
https://github.com/ofmlabs

Of course, Python, JavaScript, or Ruby cannot be called "interpreted programming language" in pure sense. They usually compile source code to intermediate representation and run them in VM or something. Sometimes even JIT is used --like the case of Google V8.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Caroliano
post Aug 8 2012, 18:13
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 21-December 05
Member No.: 26559



QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 13 2012, 16:07) *
I don't know every last one of them, but for example Handbrake doesn't include the encoders. It asks the user to download them with a mention about the patent situation.

So, a layer of indirection, with the appropriate legal warnings, would make everyone happy?

Something like this: "get the binary"

No link to patented material in HA, warning on the legality for the user and, on top of that, a readily available unquestionably legal way to reach to the same point (getting the binary by compiling it).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
benski
post Aug 8 2012, 20:42
Post #20


Winamp Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 670
Joined: 17-July 05
From: Brooklyn, NY
Member No.: 23375



QUOTE (Caroliano @ Aug 8 2012, 13:13) *
QUOTE (Garf @ Jul 13 2012, 16:07) *
I don't know every last one of them, but for example Handbrake doesn't include the encoders. It asks the user to download them with a mention about the patent situation.

So, a layer of indirection, with the appropriate legal warnings, would make everyone happy?

Something like this: "get the binary"

No link to patented material in HA, warning on the legality for the user and, on top of that, a readily available unquestionably legal way to reach to the same point (getting the binary by compiling it).


Of course, this just shifts the burden of patent licensing from the developer to the user.

(I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Caroliano
post Aug 8 2012, 23:53
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 21-December 05
Member No.: 26559



But then you actually allow citizens of countries with non-retarded patent laws to exercise their rights. For example, from the LAME FAQ linked earlier in this thread:

QUOTE
Note that under German Patent Law, §11(1) a patent doesn't cover
private acts with non-industrial purposes. Probably interesting for
developers is that a patent doesn't cover acts with experimental
purposes, that aim at the object of the patented invention (§11(2)).


But I'm not a patent lawyer either. BTW, that is also why I think that a patent law is broken if everyone and their mother must worry about it...

This post has been edited by Caroliano: Aug 8 2012, 23:55
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Aug 9 2012, 09:15
Post #22


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1747
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



experimental purposes? I must say that this legal mambo-jambo is geting in a way of hydrogenaudio conversations all the time, anything we can do? additional TOS: "Leave legalities to the layers", perhaps? Just an experimental idea, based on the fact that most of us are not winamp/nero developers.

p.s. Is there an actual lawyer interested in music / tech (or are you guys out for money 24h / day?) ?

This post has been edited by smok3: Aug 9 2012, 09:17


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th December 2014 - 10:40