Skip to main content

Topic: Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc. (Read 3274 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
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.

  • Brazil2
  • [*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #1
Edit: Obvious patent violation removed.

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

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 ?

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #2
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?
  • Last Edit: 12 July, 2012, 05:33:53 PM by Garf

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #3
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.

  • 2012
  • [*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #4
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.
saldl: A lightweight well-featured CLI downloader optimized for speed and early preview.
https://saldl.github.io

  • skamp
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #5
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.

  • 2012
  • [*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #6
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

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!
  • Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 08:08:18 AM by 2012
saldl: A lightweight well-featured CLI downloader optimized for speed and early preview.
https://saldl.github.io

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #7
See:
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.

  • 2012
  • [*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #8
Let me rephrase the question.

If you run software written in an interpreted language. Where is the patented technology contained exactly?
saldl: A lightweight well-featured CLI downloader optimized for speed and early preview.
https://saldl.github.io

  • LithosZA
  • [*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #9
Quote
Let me rephrase the question.

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


In memory?

  • Brazil2
  • [*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #10
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?

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 

  • lameboy
  • [*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #11
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?)
  • Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 11:28:07 AM by lameboy
XLD // ALAC // OGG VORBIS

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #12
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.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #13
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. 


  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #14
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)
  • Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 03:08:54 PM by Garf

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #15
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)
  • Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 03:24:29 PM by Garf

  • Brazil2
  • [*][*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #16
...

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.


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.

  • nu774
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #17
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.

  • Caroliano
  • [*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #18
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).

  • benski
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #19
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)

  • Caroliano
  • [*][*]
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #20
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...
  • Last Edit: 08 August, 2012, 06:55:29 PM by Caroliano

  • smok3
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
Copyright vs. patents, source code vs. compiled binaries, etc.
Reply #21
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?) ?
  • Last Edit: 09 August, 2012, 04:17:34 AM by smok3
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung