Hullo, When people ask me what Vorbis's license terms are, I usually tell them that the bitstream format is in the public domain, that the reference libraries are licensed under a BSD-like license, and that the example programs are licensed under the GNU GPL. (Note the distinction between filespec and implementation here.) Meanwhile, Theora.org's FAQ doesn't say anything about the state of the filespec, besides this:> Yes, some portions of the VP3 codec are covered by patents. However, the > Xiph.org Foundation has negotiated an irrevocable free license to the VP3 > codec for any purpose imaginable on behalf of the public.So my question is, is it alright to create and distribute a Theora codec which isn't based on the Theora code from Xiph.org? If VP3 code is in Theora, and VP3 is patented, does that mean that you can't write/modify a non-Xiph Theora codec without infringing on On2's patents? Thanks in advance, Kyungjoon Lee
Kyungjoon Lee wrote:> So my question is, is it alright to create and distribute a Theora > codec which isn't based on the Theora code from Xiph.org? If VP3 code > is in Theora, and VP3 is patented, does that mean that you can't > write/modify a non-Xiph Theora codec without infringing on On2's > patents?
<40F2BDE1.3080103@gmx.net> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407132048120.23066@login.math.uni-bonn.de> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Maik Merten wrote:> Kyungjoon Lee wrote: > > So my question is, is it alright to create and distribute a Theora > > codec which isn't based on the Theora code from Xiph.org? If VP3 code > > is in Theora, and VP3 is patented, does that mean that you can't > > write/modify a non-Xiph Theora codec without infringing on On2's > > patents? >=20 > From FAQ: >=20 > "Q. Isn't VP3 a patented technology? > Yes, some portions of the VP3 codec are covered by patents. However, the=20 > Xiph.org Foundation has negotiated an irrevocable free license to the=20 > VP3 codec for any purpose imaginable on behalf of the public. It is=20 > legal to use VP3 in any way you see fit (unless, of course, you're doing=20 > something illegal with it in your particular jurisdiction). You are free=20 > to download VP3, use it free of charge, implement it in a for-sale=20 > product, implement it in a free product, make changes to the source and=20 > distribute those changes, or print the source code out and wallpaper=20 > your spare room with it. > For more information, check the VP3 Legal Terms on the SVN page" >=20 > Although you may "infringe" on On2=B4s patents for VP3 when implementing=20 > Theora this is not a problem as On2 gave an "irrevocable free licence"=20 > to all humanity (remember: Patents can only cause trouble if you don=B4t=20 > have a license). This licencse is not bound to a specific codebase.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hm, dont' be too sure. If On2 gave a free license to use their=20 patented technology to "any person who... utilized the On2 VP3 Codec=20 Software...". The complete "VP3 Legal Terms" that the FAQ refers to is: On2 represents and warrants that it shall not assert any rights relating=20 to infringement of On2's registered patents, nor initiate any litigation=20 asserting such rights, against any person who, or entity which utilizes=20 the On2 VP3 Codec Software, including any use, distribution, and sale of=20 said Software; which make changes, modifications, and improvements in=20 said Software; and to use, distribute, and sell said changes as well as=20 applications for other fields of use.=20 This e.g. doesn't automatically allows to use patents by On2 in any other=20 software than in On2 VP3 Codec software, unless they are changes,=20 modifications or improvements.=20 I would interpret thing in that way that you are _not_ automatically=20 allowed to create a VP3 or Theora clone from scratch. Maybe it's meant in=20 a way that should allow it, but I wouldn't rely on it. Usually, legal=20 terms say exactly what they want to be allowed, and don't mean more than=20 they say.=20 Christoph
<000501c46953$fb65eea0$60389c3f@computername> Message-ID: <40F4F0B6.1080109@gmx.net> Freun Laven wrote:> Here is the original license from the original vp32.tar.gz file that was > originally distributed on On2's vp3.com site.I don?t think this license does apply to Theora. VP3 has been open-source before the Theora-project started (with the license you cited). For Theora new license-terms were negotiated with On2 AFAIK (Theora is under a BSD-like license).
<Pine.LNX.4.58.0407140933330.24645@login.math.uni-bonn.de> Message-ID: <002501c469bb$5268feb0$33389c3f@computername> From: "Christoph Lampert"> What you posted is a software license, right? It grants you the right toCorrect. It was in the source package that I downloaded right after On2 made the vp32 codec open source and they did the vp3.com web site. Here's the md5. (Just in case you want to know which version of source I have.) a903299ee014cd81ebbddd22fe12ffbf *vp32.tar.gz It's kind of odd that nowhere on the Theora site is there a copy of the original vp32 code package from On2.com/vp3.com or its license. Or any of the bug fixed versions of vp32 that were done in the past couple of years. And it's kind of odd that the vp3.com site itself no longer even has the original source or even a copy of the license! Or talks about what patents in particular are involved. That's why I posted the license that came with the code. I seem to be one of the few people who actually downloaded the original vp3.com package and are still in this forum.> use, modify, sell etc. a piece of software, which is the VP3 source code. > Basically, it allows you to do almost everything with the program, unless > you change its behaviour to not work with VP3 format anymore.Probably not even that restrictive. The Theora bitstream and codec behavior is not the same as vp32. It can do the old format, just to retain backwards compatability, but Theora itself is beyond vp32. So apparently you can go beyond vp32. Maybe still provide classic vp32 compatability, but you can apparently make a new advanced version that is not itself compatable with vp32.> But this document doesn't say a thing about other sourcecode than what it > came with. It doesn't give a license to use the patented algorithms with > anything else than the source or (permitted) modifications of.Sorry about that... I thought it did cover that. Obviously I'm not the best at reading licenses. It does, at least, give you the right to use that code and make it into something very very different. They don't say you have to actually keep the original code intact. It can be modified so much that the original code is pretty much gone. As long as it was originally based on the original code, then you shouldn't have a problem, even if the final code ends up with none of the original code left.> Christoph > > P.S. Btw, it there a list of what patents in Theora On2 actually owns?Not that I ever remember seeing. I don't remember ever seeing that on the vp3.com web site, which was where vp32 was officially released as open source. You can always contact On2.com / vp3.com and ask them directly. Probably be safer that way.
<40F4F0B6.1080109@gmx.net> Message-ID: <002601c469bb$536511f0$33389c3f@computername> From: "Maik Merten"> Freun Laven wrote: > > Here is the original license from the original vp32.tar.gz file that was > > originally distributed on On2's vp3.com site. > > I don?t think this license does apply to Theora. VP3 has been > open-source before the Theora-project started (with the license you > cited). For Theora new license-terms were negotiated with On2 AFAIK > (Theora is under a BSD-like license).The *patents* still apply, though. That's different from copyright, which is tied to a specific implementation. GNU, BSD, MIT, etc. are all copyright licenses tied to a specific code, and don't concern themselves with patents. The guy was originally asking whether it was legal to do an independant version of Theora, since On2 held the vp3 patents. And whether the license for the patents was tied to a specific implementation that you could only modify but never re-create from scratch. Since Theora is based on vp3, those patents still apply. The license for Theora etc. are open, so there aren't any issues or patents there to worry about. The license I quoted came from a package that was downloaded from vp3.com right after they made it open source and 'gave' it to Xiph. I don't think any 'new' exclusive licensing terms were given to Xiph. From what I gather, Xiph may have negotiated the idea of open sourcing vp32, but On2 gave the code and rights to everybody, not just to Xiph exclusively for Theora. At least I don't remember ever seeing anything new about on2's patents etc. as related to Theora. The only official thing I've seen about patents etc. was the official license that was in the code for vp32. The only stuff I've seen from Xiph / Theora has been summaries, such as "we negotiated a license, don't worry." That license did discuss the patents in vp32, and the rights to use those in an open source product. That was their (last?) official vp32 source package. And if I read correctly, that license does give the authority to create dirivative works (such as Theora), as well as *new* works that use those patents. (Perhaps on the condition it maintains compatability with vp3 streams.) So you don't have to worry about the vp32 patents. You just have to deal with the copyright licenses (BSD, MIT, GNU, etc.) of the vp32 or Theora code base.
<002601c469bb$536511f0$33389c3f@computername> Message-ID: <40F564E5.8010908@gmx.net> Freun Laven wrote:> > The *patents* still apply, though. That's different from copyright, which > is tied to a specific implementation. GNU, BSD, MIT, etc. are all copyright > licenses tied to a specific code, and don't concern themselves with patents.I?m aware of that.> The guy was originally asking whether it was legal to do an independant > version of Theora, since On2 held the vp3 patents. And whether the license > for the patents was tied to a specific implementation that you could only > modify but never re-create from scratch. > > Since Theora is based on vp3, those patents still apply.No doubt.> I don't think > any 'new' exclusive licensing terms were given to Xiph.The "original" VP3-code (with some bugfixes I assume) is available in Xiph SVN. This VP3-code comes with Xiph?s BSD-like license: http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/vp32/LICENSE That?s why I think the VP3-license does not apply to Theora.
<40F564E5.8010908@gmx.net> Message-ID: <000701c469c5$82a7b800$8c649c3f@computername> From: "Maik Merten"> Freun Laven wrote: > > I don't think > > any 'new' exclusive licensing terms were given to Xiph. > > The "original" VP3-code (with some bugfixes I assume) is available in > Xiph SVN. This VP3-code comes with Xiph?s BSD-like license: > > http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/vp32/LICENSEThat's not the "original" one. Not the original official package. (As you said, it probably has bug fixes etc.) I can't find any official *original* copy of vp32 (or Xiph's original version) with an original copy of the license. Yes, I definetly saw that. But it seems to be rather lacking in details.> That?s why I think the VP3-license does not apply to Theora.That is a possibility. But there has never been anything officially posted about the agreement between On2 & Xiph. (Assuming there was a special agreement.) (At least nothing that I remember or that I can find.) All that's given is a just a little one paragraph quote. I mean... really.... Is that all On2 had to say on the subject? Lawyers tend to like saying at least a few things more, such as "we can't guarantee anything", "you can't sue us", etc. Just look at what all they put into their own open source license. That's why I find it hard to believe that one single paragraph is all On2 had to say about Xiph's license. (Assuming it was actually different from what they gave everybody else.) Where is the original statement from them? Where is the original code they gave Xiph? No, I think the code that was posted on the vp3.com site is all there was. Xiph was a part of that, but I don't see anything to actually say there was a special agreement between On2 and Xiph. Much less just a single paragraph of an agreement. When the vp3.com site launched, it did talk about Xiph etc. etc., so I don't think there was anything special for Xiph. I think what they posted on the vp3.com site was the whole thing. Xiph didn't later get any special conditions. Xiph just sumarized the long license into something easier to read, and quoted one paragraph from On2 to satisfy user needs about On2's position. The whole official license is "on file" with Xiph.
<000701c469c5$82a7b800$8c649c3f@computername> Message-ID: <40F575B5.5030108@gmx.net> Freun Laven wrote:>>http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/vp32/LICENSE > > > That's not the "original" one. Not the original official package. (As you > said, it probably has bug fixes etc.)Absolutely correct :)>>That?s why I think the VP3-license does not apply to Theora. > > That is a possibility. > > But there has never been anything officially posted about the agreement > between On2 & Xiph. (Assuming there was a special agreement.) (At least > nothing that I remember or that I can find.)That?s from the license you posted: "3.1. Application of License. The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute." The copy in Xiph SVN obiously comes with a different license. How can that be? "6.1. New Versions. On2 Technologies, The Duck Corporation ("On2") may publish revised and/or new versions of the License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number." If the license coming with VP3 in SVN is legally correct (I assume it is) On2 must have released a new version of the license. This license happens to be the Xiph.org BSD-like license. It?s very likely there have been negotiations between On2 and Xiph ;)> Just look at what all they put into their own open source license. > > That's why I find it hard to believe that one single paragraph is all On2 > had to say about Xiph's license. (Assuming it was actually different from > what they gave everybody else.)The original license is more complicated because On2 reserved some rights (one example): - they demand that every modifications comes with the On2 VP3 license - they reserve the right to change the license ==> It?s necessary to specify what license applies to modifications done before the license changed. That?s one exampe of why this license is "bloated". The BSD-license is simpler: "Do what you want as long as you retain our copyright-notice - BUT DON?T SUE US!" Another example where this license is simper: You can loose your license for VP3 technology with the old license. On2 had to specify under what circumstances this can happen... and lawyers love circumstances (they will write pages and pages and pages just to make sure every thinkable flavor of circumstance is covered). You can?t loose your right to use BSD-software AFAIK (you _can_ be forced to include the copyright-notice as demanded)> Where is the original statement from them? Where is the original code they > gave Xiph?Does that matter?> When the vp3.com site launched, it did talk about Xiph etc. etc., so I don't > think there was anything special for Xiph. I think what they posted on the > vp3.com site was the whole thing. Xiph didn't later get any special > conditions. Xiph just sumarized the long license into something easier to > read, and quoted one paragraph from On2 to satisfy user needs about On2's > position. The whole official license is "on file" with Xiph. >AFAIK Xiph.org was not involved in On2?s original decision to go open-source.
<40F575B5.5030108@gmx.net> Message-ID: <000e01c469d0$54ce8070$40389c3f@computername> From: "Maik Merten"> The copy in Xiph SVN obiously comes with a different license. How can > that be?You do raise a good point. And several more later.> If the license coming with VP3 in SVN is legally correct (I assume it > is) On2 must have released a new version of the license. This license > happens to be the Xiph.org BSD-like license. It?s very likely there have > been negotiations between On2 and Xiph ;)The only stuff official was on the vp3 site. There might have been stuff posted by Xiph on Theora long ago, but if so, it's gone.> > Where is the original statement from them? Where is the original codethey> > gave Xiph? > > Does that matter?Apparently it does to the guy who was wanting to know about the patents and whether it was okay to write one from scratch, or whether he had to use the given code as a starting point! If you are a developer and thinking about doing your own implementation, you do need to work out the legal details (including patents) before you start. And you gotta know whether you can even write your own or whether you have to work on existing code. Only the original licensing (probably included with the original code) can answer that for certain.> AFAIK Xiph.org was not involved in On2?s original decision to go > open-source.I wasn't involved in any of those activities, however I did visit the vp3 site shortly after it opened and on2 released the source. They definetly talked about Xiph etc. right from the start. There had to have been some communication between them prior to the release. I don't know whether Xiph approached them and suggested open source, or somebody in On2 thought about open source and approached Xiph. Possibly the later, since at least one On2 guy seems to be 'involved with' / 'interested in' Theora. It's possible On2 gave Xiph a simplified version, but it wouldn't make much sense to give them a much more open one and then give everybody else a more closed one. After all, Theora is open source, so if that was more open, then that would defeat the purpose of releasing the more restrictive one on the vp3.com web site. That would still raise the questions of: 1) where is the original code On2 gave to Xiph; 2) What exactly was the license? I still find it very *very* difficult to believe that one paragraph is all that On2 had to say about things. I'm not a developer planning on doing my own, so this is somewhat academic for me. I just thought I could help by posting the license that On2 officially distributed with their vp32 source.
<000e01c469d0$54ce8070$40389c3f@computername> Message-ID: <40F58932.4060309@gmx.net> Freun Laven wrote:>>Does that matter? > Apparently it does to the guy who was wanting to know about the patents and > whether it was okay to write one from scratch, or whether he had to use the > given code as a starting point!Hmmm... I fail to see how _any_ of the software-licenses we are talking about could be of relevance for a completely new, written-from-scratch implementation. Example: I could happen to live in a cave. With a computer. I feel lonely and bored. So I write a video-codec for recording a video-message (Possible message: "I am lonely and bored"). This codec amazingly happens to be compatible with Ogg Theora. I think I can put any license I can think of on this amazing, completely new, written-from-scratch software. 3rd-party licenses don?t apply. Any negotiations between On2 and Xiph seem to be irrelevant to me. Any source-code transferred between On2 and Xiph seem be irrelevant. Is this really the case? I don?t know. I?m a layman in legal practice. However, On2?s patents surely _do_ apply. How could a passage in a license that doesn?t apply to my software protect me? So, you?re right! The details of the negotiations between On2 and Xiph seem to be relevant. If On2 granted a licencse to all humanity (not being bound to a specific codebase) (I assume they did) they should document this outside of a license which may or may not apply... Did I mention I am a layman? ;-)
<Pine.LNX.4.58.0407142253200.27310@login.math.uni-bonn.de> Message-ID: <40F5A6C7.6030605@gmx.net> Christoph Lampert wrote:>>However, On2?s patents surely _do_ apply. > > > Hm, do they? I still haven't seem what they patents actually are about. > Do they cover parts of the binary format? Or a way of encoding? Or > decoding? Just because yours video message is binary compatible to Theora > doesn't make contain patented routines from other systems binary > compatible to theora. You would have to check item by item what really is > patented and how.I assumed that they patented VP3-technology in way you can?t workaround if you want a compatible bitstream. This may or may not be the case.>>How could a passage in a license that doesn?t apply to my software >>protect me? > > > It could indicate that On2 gave a free irrevocable license to everyone to > use the routines which they have a patent on _for every purpose you wish_. > But they didn't, they just gave permission to use those routines for VP3 > and derived works of that. This is much less, because now you will have > two choices. Either you declare your software to be independent. Then you > don't have permission to the patents, or you declare it derived works, > then you have to obey the license that VP3 came with!There are two differently licensed flavors of VP3: - the original tarball from on2 (VP3-license) - the code in Xiph SVN (Xiph BSD-like license + irrevocable license on patents) "6.2. Effect of New Versions. Once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by On2. No one other than On2 has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License." So you can choose. Most people with programming skills don?t live in caves. It?s highly likely that any implementation compatible with Ogg Theora is written with the help of the Ogg Theora specification (which _is_ derived from VP3-code). Is any code written with the help of this specification automatically derived from the VP3-codebase (which surely is covered by the irrevocable patent license)? Then there would be no problem....> But their patents could apply to many more situations than video encoding > in VP3-like fashion. By giving a free license for _every_ purpose, they > might just as well give up the patent claim itself, then all the > difficult software license stuff wouldn't be necessary anymore.Good point.> chl > > P.S. Btw. did anyone try to simply _ask_ them what the status is?I don?t know :) However, it?s obviously a good idea.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:52:30AM +0900, Kyungjoon Lee wrote:> When people ask me what Vorbis's license terms are, I usually tell > them that the bitstream format is in the public domain, that the > reference libraries are licensed under a BSD-like license, and that > the example programs are licensed under the GNU GPL. (Note the > distinction between filespec and implementation here.)Yep. Or close enough. The 'format is in the public domain' is something of a shorthand.> So my question is, is it alright to create and distribute a Theora > codec which isn't based on the Theora code from Xiph.org? If VP3 code > is in Theora, and VP3 is patented, does that mean that you can't > write/modify a non-Xiph Theora codec without infringing on On2's > patents?The operative grant here is included in the vp32 package as it was donated to xiph.org, which postdates the releases from vp3.com that folks have been referring to. To wit: - In addition, On2 Technologies, Inc. makes the following statement regarding technology used in this software: On2 represents and warrants that it shall not assert any rights relating to infringement of On2's registered patents, nor initiate any litigation asserting such rights, against any person who, or entity which utilizes the On2 VP3 Codec Software, including any use, distribution, and sale of said Software; which make changes, modifications, and improvements in said Software; and to use, distribute, and sell said changes as well as applications for other fields of use. (http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/vp32/LICENSE) You have a good point about independent implementations; it would have been nice if we'd gotten a clearer statement that they were included. However I think you're fine. The intent was clearly that the technology is freely licensed for us in the context of VP3-based video codecs, which an implementation of the Theora bitstream specification clearly is. One also has an out in the final phrase, which would seem to grant license of the technology in general. Of course, most legal systems construct patents in such a way that reasonable certainty is impossible, I think one is as safe here as one can generally be. Please do continue with your independent implementation; such things are very important for the health of the format. I've included the above txt in a file called LICENSE in the theora source as well; hopefully this is prevent this confusion in the future. Cheers, -r
<20040715000044.GB339@ghostscript.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407150913020.27907@login.math.uni-bonn.de> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Ralph Giles wrote:> On2 represents and warrants that it shall not assert any rights > relating to infringement of On2's registered patents, nor initiate > any litigation asserting such rights, against any person who, or > entity which utilizes the On2 VP3 Codec Software, including any > use, distribution, and sale of said Software; which make changes, > modifications, and improvements in said Software; and to use, > distribute, and sell said changes as well as applications for other > fields of use. > > (http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/vp32/LICENSE) > > You have a good point about independent implementations; it would have > been nice if we'd gotten a clearer statement that they were included. > However I think you're fine. The intent was clearly that the technology > is freely licensed for us in the context of VP3-based video codecs,To me, the intent of any legal statement is only what it says: The technology is free to be used in the context of the On2 VP3 Codec and modifications thereof. Interpretating it in any other way I would find dangerous. Of course, they won't sue the hobby programmer, but if Microsoft came out with an (inferior, but integrated into windows) codec, they might very well be interested in a license fee from them. An official statement from On2 should clear this up, I'll simply ask them, maybe somebody remembers what the status is.> which an implementation of the Theora bitstream specification clearly > is.> One also has an out in the final phrase, which would seem to grant > license of the technology in general.The one you quote? That clearly tells that they are not going to sue anyone who uses the On2 VP3 Codec or modifications thereof. It doesn't say they won't sue anyone else, if they come up with a implementation themselves. It would have been simple to write that, but they really only refer to users of the "On2 VP3 Codec Software...". chl
<20040715000044.GB339@ghostscript.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407150946050.28037@login.math.uni-bonn.de> Hi Ralph, I just saw that in the CVS entry http://www.xiph.org/archives/cvs/2197.html that you were the one changing the license from "original On2" to "MIT + anti-advertising". Do you remember how that was possible? I guess, On2 must have given permission to do so... Christoph
<Pine.LNX.4.58.0407150853240.27907@login.math.uni-bonn.de> Message-ID: <40F6ADF1.2040804@gmx.net> Christoph Lampert wrote:> You could choose, _if_ it was On2 who changed the license, not someone > else (because this other person wouldn't have the right to do so). So, > we still need a document about how the VP3-stuff in theora stuff got its > new license.If I understand correctly only On2 has the right to change the licencse. If Xiph did this without permission the source in SVN would clearly (well... IANAL) be illegal. I am very confident Xiph asked for permission. Xiph - "May we change the license?" On2 - "Yes." Xiph - "Ok. Done." Although the _file_ containing the license was replaced by Xiph-staff I think the legal act to change the _license_ was still made by On2 by giving permission. Oh... did I mention IANAL?>>Most people with programming skills don?t live in caves. It?s highly >>likely that any implementation compatible with Ogg Theora is written >>with the help of the Ogg Theora specification (which _is_ derived from >>VP3-code). Is any code written with the help of this specification >>automatically derived from the VP3-codebase (which surely is covered by >>the irrevocable patent license)? Then there would be no problem.... > > > No no no, absolutely not. Please again be careful not to mix copyright and > patents. "derived from" means copyright, so it has to be based on the > sources.I don?t think I am mixing copyright and patents. I simply had the strange idea that using a document directly derived from source code will make your own implementation a derivation of that source code. As you pointed out, this is plain wrong.
<000e01c469d0$54ce8070$40389c3f@computername> <40F58932.4060309@gmx.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407142253200.27310@login.math.uni-bonn.de> <40F5A6C7.6030605@gmx.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407150853240.27907@login.math.uni-bonn.de> <40F6ADF1.2040804@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20040715162512.GA21114@ghostscript.com> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:16:49PM +0200, Maik Merten wrote:> If I understand correctly only On2 has the right to change the licencse. > If Xiph did this without permission the source in SVN would clearly > (well... IANAL) be illegal. I am very confident Xiph asked for permission.Of course it was legal to change the license. It's not that we asked permission; the donation included a transfer of copyright, so as the owners, the Xiph.org Foundation had every right to license it as we did. That's why the theora files all have a Xiph.org copyright header, rather than On2.> I don??t think I am mixing copyright and patents. I simply had the > strange idea that using a document directly derived from source code > will make your own implementation a derivation of that source code.Bit of a grey area. In the US this approach was used successfully to create 'clean room' re-implementations of e.g. the PC BIOS before the DMCA. -r
<000e01c469d0$54ce8070$40389c3f@computername> <40F58932.4060309@gmx.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407142253200.27310@login.math.uni-bonn.de> <40F5A6C7.6030605@gmx.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407150853240.27907@login.math.uni-bonn.de> <40F6ADF1.2040804@gmx.net> <20040715162512.GA21114@ghostscript.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407151931170.31975@login.math.uni-bonn.de> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Ralph Giles wrote:> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:16:49PM +0200, Maik Merten wrote: > > > If I understand correctly only On2 has the right to change the licencse. > > If Xiph did this without permission the source in SVN would clearly > > (well... IANAL) be illegal. I am very confident Xiph asked for permission. > > Of course it was legal to change the license. It's not that we asked > permission; the donation included a transfer of copyright, so as the > owners, the Xiph.org Foundation had every right to license it as we > did. That's why the theora files all have a Xiph.org copyright header, > rather than On2.Sorry, that I don't know much about the process how theora evolved. I'm a MPEG-4 guy normally, working on XviD, and there everything is simple (because everything is forbidden ;-) So you got the source code including copyright donated by On2. Did the donation also include anything like rights to control the patents and give out free licenses? Strictly speaking, if you get copyright over code which contains routines under patents, you of course don't get any rights on the patent by that. Then, you could have changed the software license to anything you like, but you could not extend the patent license to everyone. chl