Slashdot Mirror
WebM Licensing Problems Resolved
breser writes "The WebM licensing problems have been resolved. The copyright license is straight BSD now, and the patent license is separate and has no impact on the copyright license. Quoting Chris DiBona: 'As it was originally written, if a patent action was brought against Google, the patent license terminated. This provision itself is not unusual in an OSS license, and similar provisions exist in the 2nd Apache License and in version 3 of the GPL. The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2 incompatible. Also, in doing this, we effectively created a potentially new open source copyright license, something we are loath to do. Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses, in this new iteration of the patent clause we've decoupled patents from copyright, thus preserving the pure BSD nature of the copyright license. This means we are no longer creating a new open source copyright license, and the patent grant can exist on its own.'"
I'm glad that that issue has now been settled. When do we start seeing extensive adoption of WebM and ditching of the H.264 and others?
There's no doubt that Google has made an effort to make its licensing terms more consistent and compatible with existing FOSS licenses. Maybe some of this could have been resolved beforehand if Google had talked to such organizations as the OSI and FSF.
But one important problem remains even with the new licensing terms: there's no indemnification or holding harmless in the event of patent-related problems. I asked at the end of this blog post whether it would be fair for Google to reap most of the rewards if WebM becomes a success while the commercial adopters of WebM would bear the risk in case things go wrong on the patent front. By not even providing some basic indemnification, Google calls into question that it's really sure there aren't going to be any problems.
I am no expert on licenses, but according to GNU, the 3-clause BSD license used by WebM is GPL-compatible. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
You're thinking about the 3-clause BSD license. Which is not used in this case.
Also 3-clause BSD is compatible with GPL3.
You're misrepresenting the "restrictions".
BSD is actually less restrictive. While it requires attribution, it doesn't require that derivative work be released under BSD, while GPL requires that derivative work maintain the GPL license.
This allows entities to make non-free software based on WebM, which GPL would not allow. I'm not sure why you're stating it as obvious fact that BSD isn't "good enough", though.
My other sig is clever.
Your information is out of date. They're using the new and simplified BSD license, which is GPL compatible.
Don't go getting facts involved here in his attempt to license troll...
It looks like a 3-clause BSD license to me... http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/
GPL requires you to include the copyright notices, thus give attribution. Check section: 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies. Same if you modify the code, you need to provide your copyright info. The GPL isn't a license that says "do what you want, but provide source", particularly v3. And the BSD license (modern) is fully compatible with the GPL, according to the FSF, who would be considered the authority here.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
That's not an exact BSD license...
Advertising clause looks like:
"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software ."
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the
Uh, I'm pretty sure the GPL requires that you don't remove the copyright notice from things too. You're probably a decade out-of-date, and thinking of the pre-1999 BSD license, which included a clause requiring attribution in any advertising material for the software as well. Practically nobody uses the old BSD licence for new software now, preferring the New BSD License or the FreeBSD License.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
And the patent license?
> if a patent action was brought against Google, the patent license terminated
This will happen like the next day after WebM becomes semi-relevant.
And the patent issue is the only one of importance, otherwise x264 is the same Open Source too. With much better quality.
BSD is actually less restrictive. While it requires attribution, it doesn't require that derivative work be released under BSD, while GPL requires that derivative work maintain the GPL license.
I don't believe this is true of the GPL. If you modify GPL code or make a derivative work thereof, you are the copyright holder of your changes. AFAIK, your modifications just need to be licensed under some GPL-compatible license, at least as far as the distribution restrictions of the GPL apply. So your modifications don't necessarily have to be licensed under the exact terms and conditions of the GPL, just a compatible license.
Of course, the common thing to do to keep things simple is to release your changes with the same license as the original work, but that's not a requirement. Anyway, I believe you're correct about the BSD license being less restrictive than the GPL, but keep in mind that GPL proponents have a different and equally valid viewpoint on what constitutes as a restriction.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
The fact that the BSD license requires you to include attribution kind of makes it incompatible with GPL since that is an 'additional restriction' which GPL forbids.
From the GPL:
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
Try again.
Indeed
From the web site:
WebM is an open, royalty-free, media file format designed for the web.
WebM defines the file container structure, video and audio formats. WebM files consist of video streams compressed with the VP8 video codec and audio streams compressed with the Vorbis audio codec. The WebM file structure is based on the Matroska container.
It's gone. The license IS 3 clause BSD. You are permitted to use and copy per the BSD license terms. There is now an additional patent grant from Google. They let you use their patents related to WebM as long as you follow the terms in the patent grant (and those were very carefully crafted to be compatible with GPL3 and Apache conditions). Moreover the patent grant does not take away the rights premitted say in GPL2, so there is no trouble there ot with LGPL2 either.
I'm really annoyed at Google for this bullshit, and the new license is only going to increase adoption of a technology that should have been stillborn.
Well, it looks incompatible to me, but as you pointed out, its on their page of compatible licenses so it'd be really hard to go after anyone for doing so.
I stand corrected.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
(please ignore that I am anon, I lost my password from 1997.
Can I now use webm without getting sued by other people?)
You mean the clause mentioned here? The one that hasn't been a part of the BSD license since 1999? That advertising clause?
Except for the name of the organization, the WebM license is word-for-word identical to the license currently used by the primary copyright owners of the product known as "BSD". If that's not "an exact BSD license", then I don't know what is.
It is incompatible; the BSD license includes a license reproduction demand, and this is in violation of the no additional restrictions of the GPL. GPL-fans tend to say that this is OK because the GPL requires a copyright and disclaimer; however, the requirement of a *specific* copyright notice is actually a significant extra requirement. Think about including 1000 different pieces of open source software (e.g, because you're using an operating system) and having to include text from each of these, and distributing where you can't include an electronic version. It's the difference between 10 pages (GPL) and 1000 pages (one each of the different licenses.)
I've had the problem when basing off BSD operating systems. It is actually substantial.
If you read their page they specifically deny any indemnification. They note you won't be sued by and of the MPEG-LA members, of course, but if there are other patents, well you are on your own. So supposing Google held a patent over something H.264 uses and decided to sue you, well you'd be SOL and have to defend it yourself.
You only tend to find indemnification clauses in the case of very large companies, and then when the more or less developed the technology themselves are fare fairly confident that they hold all the cards.
So no, there's no indemnification of WebM. However what you do have is Google's statement that they carefully checked VP8 before and after buying On2 and they think it is clear. Google is the one company that has the resources to conduct a search like that efficiently, and they have good reason not to release this unless they are confident, as they will for sure be someone that would get sued as they have lots of money.
Also, their patent revocation license means that people might have trouble suing over WebM. So say Sony decides to sue. However it turns out their laptops have an ATi graphics chip in them that accelerates WebM (ATi has said they are going to do that). Well Sony has now lost the right to those patents and is open to countersuit. Nothing they can easily do about it, either, as nVidia is also in with WebM.
Google seems pretty confident they are in the clear, I think it is reasonable for everyone else to feel confident.
So in the next year and a half will we expect to see WebM 1.0, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.1 and 2.2?
I can see it now, not being able to watch video on all sites because they use "2.1" and the hardware decoder in your Android phone only supports 1.6 even though it was just released yesterday.
Seriously, is Google the company that we want attempting to control a video standard? Sure they have a lot of smart developers over there, and so far I'm not convinced they can hold back and not change things too often. Is WebM as is really considered release ready by Google? After the decoder is put in a bunch of hardware will they all of a sudden come out with "Don't use that version any more, use this new one, its better. Oh, and you have to re-encode all your video."
Just my thoughts.
The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2 incompatible.
Oops, I at first thought it was GPLv3 compatible because I didn't notice that distinction when I first read it.
Actually, no, at least not for GPL v2
Clause 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Emphasis mine.
I haven't read GPLv3 in detail though.
Don't quote me on this.
Using patent language borrowed from both the Apache and GPLv3 patent clauses...
I'm not sure about the Apache license, but the FSF holds the copyright to the GPL itself. Is Google infringing?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
U MAD?
I think that one part of the analysis we can't leave out is the MPEG LA's commercial interests are not served by allowing a free standard. So, whether it be patent FUD or actual lawsuits, they will find a way to oppose it. It's not a matter of "do they have a patent that covers part of it" it's a matter of "how can they keep the license money flowing."
In short, I don't know if they'll sue or just try to FUD people into paying up anyhow, but there's no way in hell that the MPEG LA will just give up on collecting licensing money. They either sue or threaten people into paying them, or they go out of business. And "go out of business" isn't even an option as far as they're concerned.