Reading Comprehension and the English Language on 07 Sep 2007

[Webmink]

Hi Miguel. So you really believe that the only people entitled to an
opinion about a topic are those who, by your sole judgement, have a
totally internally consistent and blameless approach in all related
areas? You're too perfect for me in that case. I know I am not, so
it's not even worth discussing how you are, as ever, completely
ignoring my real point by taking offence at all possible other points.

S.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello Simon,

Hi Miguel. So you really believe that the only people entitled to an
opinion about a topic are those who, by your sole judgement, have a
totally internally consistent and blameless approach in all related
areas?  

No Simon, I do not believe that.   That would be a position based on
fallacious premises.   Am able to decouple the messenger from the
message.

I merely find it "funny to be lectured" as I said on my blog post.

The core of the problem is that your message is either lost on the noise
that you made about Microsoft's EULA (and the analysis is in addition
botched) or was based on a fairly exaggerated position of loosing
fundamental freedoms.  

You're too perfect for me in that case. I know I am not, so
it's not even worth discussing how you are, as ever, completely
ignoring my real point by taking offence at all possible other points

And what would that real point be?

Considering that your intro paragraph is still confusing (You got me
and Matt confused!) and your analysis is wrong.

Maybe the issue is that you think that am assisting people that distribute
an implementation under a license that you deem unacceptable (and here
is where your EULA analysis comes into play).

So explain to me what is this real point, it was lost to me.

Miguel.

[Simon Phipps]

On Sep 7, 2007, at 21:33, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

Hello Simon,

Hi Miguel. So you really believe that the only people entitled to an
opinion about a topic are those who, by your sole judgement, have a
totally internally consistent and blameless approach in all related
areas?  

No Simon, I do not believe that.   That would be a position based on
fallacious premises.   Am able to decouple the messenger from the
message.

I merely find it "funny to be lectured" as I said on my blog post.

Cool. We need more humour in the world.

As it happens, I believe the best way to spread software freedom is to get people to use as much Free software as they can in the order that works for them. I don't believe it's essential to start from the operating system and work outwards, any more than I agree with religions that describe a perfect God and then claim he hates some sins more than others....

The core of the problem is that your message is either lost on the noise
that you made about Microsoft's EULA (and the analysis is in addition
botched) or was based on a fairly exaggerated position of loosing
fundamental freedoms.  

Actually, I'm fascinated to understand why you think my analysis of the MPEG-LA license is wrong. The terms say:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD (“VC-1 VIDEO”) OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

So if my activity is either commercial or on behalf of another person (e.g. paid employment) or both, my use of VC-1 is unlicensed. Or do I have this wrong?

You're too perfect for me in that case. I know I am not, so
it's not even worth discussing how you are, as ever, completely
ignoring my real point by taking offence at all possible other points

And what would that real point be?

Considering that your intro paragraph is still confusing (You got me
and Matt confused!) and your analysis is wrong.

Plenty of other people we'ren't confused, but I've now added a clarification just in case people still can't see that I am referring to Silverlight, not Moonlight, and to the platforms Silverlight is implemented on, not Linux.

Maybe the issue is that you think that am assisting people that distribute
an implementation under a license that you deem unacceptable (and here
is where your EULA analysis comes into play).

So explain to me what is this real point, it was lost to me.

It's the same point I know we disagree about over Mono. I know you have plenty of cool technology in Mono and likely will in Moonlight, so please don't take umbrage again over that - I'm not criticising the programming. But in both cases you're chasing Microsoft's tail-lights as they intentionally create a non-free ecosystem, and encouraging others to join you. With Moonlight, you will probably be the vehicle that brings DRM to Linux. But I know from experience we're unlikely to agree here.

S.

[ruurd]

It's a pity to see you resort to personal attacks and engage in
pissing contests.

[dlam...@columbus.rr.com]

I haven't read every license I've ever clicked through, but I've read
a few. I've also looked at some open-source licenses to see if I'd be
able to use a library without committing the full body of my work,
past, present, and future, to full public scrutiny.

I thought the LGPL was among the more clearly-written docs I read, but
there's enough complexity in any of these licenses that a casual read
could lead to misunderstandings.

I really think the spirit of Simon's post comes more from a religious
anti-Microsoft base than anything else. If Microsoft is Satan, then
anything close to them must be tainted, right?

I'll be the first to crack on Microsoft when they do something truly
stupid or even evil, but I sure hope I retain the ability to judge
products and companies on the merits of what's real. I've always
loved Microsoft's development environments, for instance, but I hate
the fact that they've been so reluctant to embrace other platforms.

Personally, I've never seen an argument turn constructive once the
"religion" button is pushed. The conversation far too frequently
takes leave of the facts, and it's hard to find the rails again.

For the record, I'm really glad you're getting a little cooperation
from Microsoft. I don't see a way this can be anything other than a
win for both organizations.

-D. Lambert

[Webmink]

On Sep 7, 10:16 pm, "dlamb...@appdev.info" <dlamb...@columbus.rr.com>
wrote:

> I really think the spirit of Simon's post comes more from a religious
> anti-Microsoft base than anything else. If Microsoft is Satan, then
> anything close to them must be tainted, right?

Actually no. But I am taking factors other than technology into
account in forming my judgements. Some people call that "religion",
but I regard an approach that takes only the technology into
consideration and ignores social, commercial and political issues as
amoral.

I can understand, however, how those who have spent a lot of time
close to people at the opposite (and equally erroneous) extreme (all
politics, no technology) might err in a technology-only direction.

S.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Cool. We need more humour in the world.

As it happens, I believe the best way to spread software freedom is to get people to use as much Free software as they can in the order that works for them. I don't believe it's essential to start from the operating system and work outwards, any more than I agree with religions that describe a perfect God and then claim he hates some sins more than others....

That sounds sensible.   That being said, Moonlight is open source, if you want to use it on OSX for whatever reasons, it *can* be ported.   I wont likely do it, because it seems like the value added is incredibly small and it is also for a proprietary operating system.   There are bigger fish to fry.

The core of the problem is that your message is either lost on the noise
that you made about Microsoft's EULA (and the analysis is in addition
botched) or was based on a fairly exaggerated position of loosing
fundamental freedoms.  

Actually, I'm fascinated to understand why you think my analysis of the MPEG-LA license is wrong. The terms say:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO") OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

So if my activity is either commercial or on behalf of another person (e.g. paid employment) or both, my use of VC-1 is unlicensed. Or do I have this wrong?

Sure.   The section (b) above is the key, it is an (a) or (b) conditions, not an (a) and (b).

And (b) gives you the option to watch VC1 content that was "obtained from a video provider licensed to provide vc-1 video", ie anyone that has encoded and has taken a license to do so from MPEG-LA.

So the consumer is effectively empowered to watch the video.   In fact section (A) does not even apply to Silverlight as Silverlight does not do any encoding itself.

Plenty of other people we'ren't confused, but I've now added a clarification just in case people still can't see that I am referring to Silverlight, not Moonlight, and to the platforms Silverlight is implemented on, not Linux.

Maybe plenty of people did, but myself, one poster and Matt did not.   I saw your clarification at the bottom, but the top still contains this implication.

So explain to me what is this real point, it was lost to me.

It's the same point I know we disagree about over Mono. I know you have plenty of cool technology in Mono and likely will in Moonlight, so please don't take umbrage again over that - I'm not criticising the programming. But in both cases you're chasing Microsoft's tail-lights as they intentionally create a non-free ecosystem, and encouraging others to join you. With Moonlight, you will probably be the vehicle that brings DRM to Linux. But I know from experience we're unlikely to agree here.

Correct, and I have no issue  with you on this regard, we both have differing opinions on this matter.   I only took objection with the rest and I would not have said much more beyond your post until I found out about Matt's picking up the meme and running with it.

I do not worry much about chasing head-lights.   When I started using GNU and Linux in 1992 (or 1991) we were chasing the "big boys" and people considered Linux a toy: we could not catch up with 'real unix' and we could not catch up to 'real GNU Hurd'.  I have become immune to that argument.   The same is said about our C# compiler, but for instance, by the time Microsoft ships their 3.0 compiler, we will have a complete 3.0 compiler.  

In some areas we can match them on time, in some others we can not, and in some we have created libraries for Mono and Unix that work on both (so technically we are "ahead" in those areas).

Am myself convinced that being a Sun employee and being so close to Java tints your opinion, just like my opinion is tinted by my work on Mono, but we can all leave next to each other.

Miguel

[Simon Phipps]

On Sep 7, 2007, at 22:43, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

Actually, I'm fascinated to understand why you think my analysis of the MPEG-LA license is wrong. The terms say:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO") OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

So if my activity is either commercial or on behalf of another person (e.g. paid employment) or both, my use of VC-1 is unlicensed. Or do I have this wrong?

Sure.   The section (b) above is the key, it is an (a) or (b) conditions, not an (a) and (b).

And (b) gives you the option to watch VC1 content that was "obtained from a video provider licensed to provide vc-1 video", ie anyone that has encoded and has taken a license to do so from MPEG-LA.

So the consumer is effectively empowered to watch the video.   In fact section (A) does not even apply to Silverlight as Silverlight does not do any encoding itself.

OK, we agree about that. But you disagreed with me about the implications for commercial users and for those in employment. The terms say that such people have no license at all to MPEG-LA's patents: "NO  LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE."  Note that this and the words "THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER" apply to both a and b.

I said:

If you're a business, you're also not covered by the MPEG patent licenses

and you said I was:

twisting the MPEGLA terms

So I was asking why you think I am twisting those terms. As far as I can see, anyone using Silverlight at or for work is violating MPEG-LA's patents if they view VC-1 video.

S.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello Simon,

Actually, I'm fascinated to understand why you think my analysis of the MPEG-LA license is wrong. The terms say:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO") OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

So if my activity is either commercial or on behalf of another person (e.g. paid employment) or both, my use of VC-1 is unlicensed. Or do I have this wrong?

Sure.   The section (b) above is the key, it is an (a) or (b) conditions, not an (a) and (b).

And (b) gives you the option to watch VC1 content that was "obtained from a video provider licensed to provide vc-1 video", ie anyone that has encoded and has taken a license to do so from MPEG-LA.

So the consumer is effectively empowered to watch the video.   In fact section (A) does not even apply to Silverlight as Silverlight does not do any encoding itself.

OK, we agree about that. But you disagreed with me about the implications for commercial users and for those in employment. The terms say that such people have no license at all to MPEG-LA's patents: "NO  LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE."  Note that this and the words "THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER" apply to both a and b.

Your breakdown of the paragraph is what is confusing you.

The first sentence specifies the rights (that includes the "a or b" clause).   The second sentence states that other than the rights specified in the first sentence you have no further rights.

Commercial users watching content are covered by this piece: " OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO."

The second quote statement states the the first sentence is the field of use.   For example a common mistake that people are making is "Since I bought a license to Windows, am entitled to the patents in Windows to use elsewhere because I paid for it" (this is a common rationale for the "It is ok to click 'I have a patent license' when you install media codecs because I own Windows".   You do not own the patent license, the patent license is only transfered for very specific uses).

twisting the MPEGLA terms

So I was asking why you think I am twisting those terms. As far as I can see, anyone using Silverlight at or for work is violating MPEG-LA's patents if they view VC-1 video.

Miguel.

[Miguel de Icaza]

It's a pity to see you resort to personal attacks and engage in
pissing contests.

Yeah, I thought about it, but am tired of being the punching bag of the punditry circles.

Miguel.

[Simon Phipps]

 For readers coming late to this discussion, we are talking about http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/license.aspx and speciafically the text that says:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD (“VC-1 VIDEO”) OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

You said:

The first sentence specifies the rights (that includes the "a or b" clause).   The second sentence states that other than the rights specified in the first sentence you have no further rights.

I think you're misreading it and neglecting the very first phrase.  Let's break it down. There are two different statements conflated in the capitalised text:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO  ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD (“VC-1 VIDEO”). NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

and

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO  DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

Both statements apply only "FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER" and "NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE"

Commercial and non-personal users of Silverlight have no license of any kind to "VC-1 VIDEO". What part of that am I getting wrong?

S.

[lukev...@gmail.com]

A great read as usual Miguel. Hopefully, Moonlight will eventually be
ported to Windows and Mac OS, and become the "Firefox"-type
alternative to the real Silverlight. We're already closer to something
like this than we ever were with Adobe Flash.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Simon,

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO") OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

So far so good.

I think you're misreading it and neglecting the very first phrase.  Let's break it down. There are two different statements conflated in the capitalised text:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO  ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO"). NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

and

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO  DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

You are copying and pasting selective parts, that is not how it works.   There are two sentences, here presented in technicolor:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO") OR (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO.

 NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

The red part gives you two options (OR):

• (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO")

• (B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO.

(A) is clearly not our case, because Silverlight does not do encoding.   This is clearly boilerplate from MPEG-LA.

(B) You have the rights to "Decode VC-1 Video that was encoded", now there you have two options, let me break those for you:

• DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY  here comes the connector "AND/OR"

• WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO.

The case that we care about is the second one, that is what gives you the right to decode commercially (the first one does not).   It applies in the case where you have obtained a video that was encoded by someone that has the proper licenses to do VC-1 encoding.   The non-commercial case is only the first point, and that allows you to decode VC1 content that was encoded without a license from VC1.

I have no idea how someone can determine if the source was encoded by someone that has the proper licenses, whether that is enforceable, enforced or some trademark-like legalese to ensure that there are no loopholes.

Both statements apply only "FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER" and "NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE"

You are confused.   "NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE" is the second sentence, and all it says is that beyond the rights in (a) and the two points of (b) you have no other rights (for example, you have no right to redistribution, and you have no rights to use the software to encode for commercial use).

Commercial and non-personal users of Silverlight have no license of any kind to "VC-1 VIDEO". What part of that am I getting wrong?

Miguel.

S.

[Simon Phipps]

So what about the bit before (A)?

S.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

    I wanted to add, Googling for MPEGLA and "non-commercial" shows lot of other uses;   Apparently MPEGLA is the same licensor for H264 which explains the same confusion that people are having over Flash 9 (it includes the same wording from MPEGLA).

    So far Apple's Quicktime, Nokia cell phones, PlayStations, Final Cut, and assorted media players have the same clauses (anyone licensing the patents from MPEGLA, .http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-licensees.cfm have to include that blurb on their products).   I would be surprised if Apple's Quicktime could not be used commercially or Nokia cellphones could not be used commercially, and the same would go for FinalCut Pro.   PlayStations we can probably eliminate from "commercial use" though.

    You can see similar wording in the Quicktime license:

               http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/quicktime.html

    This seems to be part of OSX, part of the EULA that you accept when installing it, again, this all comes from MPEGLA:

http://www.maccompanion.com/archives/November2006/Columns/SoftwareLicenseAgreements.htm

    I also found this while searching for stuff, OSX EULA:

              http://www.eulascan.com/product.aspx?pid=22

    The most disturbing entry is probably from a Macromedia blogger, who says that he will not discuss some issues because they are controversial and they involve streaming and encoding of H.264 data (again, because of the same text on the Flash Eula: from MPEGLA).

              http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/08/what-just-happened-to-video-on-web_20.html

Miguel.

[Miguel de Icaza]

So what about the bit before (A)?

You got me thinking about what commercial means in this case.

What this probably means is that you can not use your PC with Silverlight/QuickTime/Flash to project movies in a movie theater without paying a licensing fee to MPEGLA.

Miguel

[Simon Phipps]

On Sep 8, 2007, at 01:16, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

You got me thinking about what commercial means in this case.

What this probably means is that you can not use your PC with Silverlight/QuickTime/Flash to project movies in a movie theater without paying a licensing fee to MPEGLA. 

I think the language in the SIlverlight license is pretty clear actually and goes much further. Since colour doesn't work on Google Groups, I'll use symbols.

The capitalised text in the license says   [ @ | % ]

[  is:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO

@ is:

 (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VC-1 STANDARD ("VC-1 VIDEO")

| is:

OR

% is:

B) DECODE VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE VC-1 VIDEO.

] is:

NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

With a plain English reading of the text I can thus construct two different statements from the text validly:

[ @ ]

or

[ % ]

What gives the scope of usage here is [. Any use that falls outside the scope of [ is prohibited by ]. Your cinema example is certainly one example, but in fact any use that is not both personal and non-commercial is licensed as far as a direct English reading of the text is concerned. 

IANAL and there may be a deeper magic from before the dawn of time that I don't know about but prima facie any business using Silverlight to view VC-1 Video under these terms is acting without a license from MPEG-LA.

S.

[Webmink]

Oops, typo - UNlicensed :-)

[stuart.a...@gmail.com]

Miguel, I fully admit I haven't researched this question in detail but
these potential "gotchas" are, I think, obvious enough (to those of us
that aren't too busy panicking over the mere existence of a Microsoft
connection) that they ought to be addressed directly in a blog post.
The answers may be out there if you look but shouting them a little
louder may be worth it, so even people not following closely still see
them.

The first is the question of Moonlight's use of Microsoft-licensed,
proprietary codecs. It goes without saying that that's not going to
fly on many distros, Debian, Fedora and Ubuntu among them (and
*hopefully* OpenSUSE too. but I'm not as familar with their rules).
Will Moonlight be architected in such a way that the codecs are
pluggable, so that free software implementations can be used instead
by people in jurisdictions not subject to patent infringement, or
people willing to take the patent risk onto themselves? Ideal, from my
admittedly not fully informed PoV, would be if Moonlight used
GStreamer for its audio and video pipeline, and the Microsoft codecs
were just plugged into the GStreamer stack in the usual way.

The second is your comment that people can port Moonlight to Windows
or Mac. The rest of Mono already runs on those platforms today, as I
understand it. I'm sure Novell doesn't consider those platforms its
primary target, but the code for them is still in the main Mono
repository hosted on Novell's servers. Can you confirm that the deal
with Microsoft won't prevent the main Mono/Moonlight repository from
including code for Moonlight on these platforms, and that the
Moonlight team will accept those patches to the main development trunk
if someone writes them?

Are there answers to these questions out there somewhere?

[Miguel de Icaza]

What gives the scope of usage here is [. Any use that falls outside the scope of [ is prohibited by ]. Your cinema example is certainly one example, but in fact any use that is not both personal and non-commercial is licensed as far as a direct English reading of the text is concerned. 

IANAL and there may be a deeper magic from before the dawn of time that I don't know about but prima facie any business using Silverlight to view VC-1 Video under these terms is acting without a license from MPEG-LA.

I agree that the legalese makes things blurry.

In my recent discussions with lawyers the topic of what is considered a "customer" came up again in licenses.   I always considered "customers" those that paid, but apparently in the licensing circles, "customers" include people that use software you provided regardless of the price.

In any case, since the wording comes from MPEG-LA and this is the same wording that is used for Quicktime (H.264) and other codecs that are commonly distributed (Flash, iTunes and QuickTime) either every Apple customer using a Mac in a commercial enterprise is in violation of the license or we are missing a subtlety.

Miguel.

[Webmink]

On Sep 8, 5:59 am, "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel.de.ic...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree that the legalese makes things blurry.

So, are you saying maybe I didn't twist the MPEG terms after all?

> In any case, since the wording comes from MPEG-LA and this is the same
> wording that is used for Quicktime (H.264) and other codecs that are
> commonly distributed (Flash, iTunes and QuickTime) either every Apple
> customer using a Mac in a commercial enterprise is in violation of the
> license or we are missing a subtlety.

I'm looking for that subtlety, yes. Of course, it's possible that the
intent is indeed to drive diligent commercial users to buy patent
licenses - that's the way software patent extortion works.

S.

[chris]

I'm coming late to this discussion, and don't have much of a leg to
stand on since I'm more of a user than a developer. I must say
though, that I've used Mono, and I like it, and I look forward to
Moonlight. That didn't make me any less scared by the codec licensing
bits of the agreement. Video is currently a hot application, and it
seems like it's the one place where there is no free alternative if
there's no OGG support. If there is OGG support, it almost certainly
won't extend to the Windows silverlight viewer, and therefore still
won't be particularly useful for internet-based cross-platform
applications. Without a common, open video platform, I don't see this
as much of a step forward from flash (as a user). So - congrats, but
I think the video piece is pretty important and hope it can be worked
out.

- c

[jono...@gmail.com]

Miguel,

An excellent, excellent post and rebuttal to what I also believe are
misconstrued and in some cases, indefensible claims. It is impressive
to see such a detailed and thought provoking response with a deep
rooted message of "practice what you preach".

Keep up the excellent work.

Jono Bacon

[sip...@gmail.com]

The only reason I read Simon's blog is because you found it worthy to
post a comment on.
After reading that original post I am shocked that you did not just
ignored it -- the impartiality and the lack of logic in that text is
more then obvious.
Why bother?

PS. The patents are an issue, but that guy does not even mention them.

[schmichael]

http://img471.imageshack.us/my.php?image=miguelmoonlightnh1.png

[mjasay]

I think I was likely wrong about Moonlight. But I liked being called
the Robert Novack of open-source punditry. I think. Was that a
compliment? ;-)

I wasn't trying to get into the Moonlight discussion at all, Miguel,
because I recognized (after reading your comment on Simon's blog) that
the licensing terms applied to Silverlight, not Moonlight. I think I
was just a little sloppy in introducing the topic.

You know (I think) that my real concern is with Novell's patent
partnership with Microsoft, and anything that relates to it. I think
that deal was wrong for open source - against the ethics of open
source and harmful to its future. I suppose we disagree on this, but
that is my position. I apologize for painting my argument too broadly
in this case.

Matt

[Lluis Sanchez]

On Sep 8, 2:36 am, Simon Phipps <webm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2007, at 01:16, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
>
>
> > You got me thinking about what commercial means in this case.
>
> > What this probably means is that you can not use your PC with
> > Silverlight/QuickTime/Flash to project movies in a movie theater
> > without paying a licensing fee to MPEGLA.
>
> I think the language in the SIlverlight license is pretty clear

It will be clear once you know what does MPEGLA mean by "commercial
use". I guess the answer can be found somewhere in the MPEGLA web site
(the license notice points there for more info). In any case, I think
it is obvious that "commercial use" here means using the decoder in a
commercial product, but not using the decoder in commercial facilities
or for doing your job.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Stuart,

    We are taking patches.   For patches, you need to do a copyright assignment to Novell as we plan on relicensing the code.

Miguel

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

applications.  Without a common, open video platform, I don't see this
as much of a step forward from flash (as a user).  So - congrats, but
I think the video piece is pretty important and hope it can be worked
out.

Correct.   Moonlight is not going to solve that problem.

Miguel.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hey Jono,

    Thanks!   That was one nice email.   Hope to see you in Boston in November!

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

> I agree that the legalese makes things blurry.

So, are you saying maybe I didn't twist the MPEG terms after all?

Correct.   The text is confusing enough that I believe it is going to need a lawyer to actually explain that.

I'm looking for that subtlety, yes. Of course, it's possible that the
intent is indeed to drive diligent commercial users to buy patent
licenses - that's the way software patent extortion works.

I believe this document from MPEGLA sheds light into the issue:

http://www.mpegla.com/vc1/vc1_TermsSummary.pdf

My reading is that end-users are allowed to access the content, but I have to admit that the document is not easy reading.

Miguel.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello Sipano,

The only reason I read Simon's blog is because you found it worthy to
post a comment on.
After reading that original post I am shocked that you did not just
ignored it -- the impartiality and the lack of logic in that text is
more then obvious.
Why bother?

The only reason I replied was because the meme started to pick up.   Never a good sign.

And we know what sloppy, self-righteous and double-standards did to OOXML's reputation.

Miguel.

[Simon Phipps]

On Sep 8, 2007, at 03:39, sip...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> After reading that original post I am shocked that you did not just
> ignored it -- the impartiality and the lack of logic in that text is
> more then obvious.

Would you care to elaborate? I have agreed with some of the issues
Miguel has raised and added comments, and Miguel has just said he
agrees after all with my concerns over MPEG-LA.

Right now I stand by the assertion that Moonlight incites people to
join an ecosystem that raises serious concerns (notably that the
control point is in the CODECs and not the code). Which other aspects
of my posting do you believe lack logic? I'm happy to debate them.

S.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

You know (I think) that my real concern is with Novell's patent
partnership with Microsoft, and anything that relates to it.  I think
that deal was wrong for open source - against the ethics of open
source and harmful to its future.  I suppose we disagree on this, but
that is my position.  I apologize for painting my argument too broadly
in this case.

I have disconnected my brain from the discussion of the patent agreement,
there are plenty of bad and good arguments on both sides.    And they
go into a lot more depth than the simplified world of good vs evil and us vs them.

I personally do not like it, but it goes into a lot more depth than "its evil", it has
plenty of nuances and counter-ballancing points, not only in the particular agreement
between Novell and Microsoft but in the industry as a whole.

And these days, Internet punditry, like TV punditry, has a very short memory and is
sloppily researched which leads to incredibly funny posts that are odes to double
standards.

Regardless of that, you have your agenda, and you will push it every time.  Your
bitterness shows, and I do not blame you for that.  Am bitter as well and it shows
when I discuss the Bush administration on my blog.  

Today you merely pooped on my turf so I called you on it.

Miguel

[Miguel de Icaza]

Would you care to elaborate?  I have agreed with some of the issues
Miguel has raised and added comments, and Miguel has just said he
agrees after all with my concerns over MPEG-LA.

I agreed that the text was hard to interpret;   It is definitely confusing, but considering that every single OSX and QuickTime license comes with the same wording from the same licensing organization I doubt very much that use in a commercial setting is prohibited.   What is probably prohibited was the equivalent to CD's "You may not perform this in public" clause (the movie theater example).

Right now I stand by the assertion that Moonlight incites people to
join an ecosystem that raises serious concerns (notably that the
control point is in the CODECs and not the code). Which other aspects
of my posting do you believe lack logic? I'm happy to debate them.

*Silverlight* promotes the adoption of VC-1 content;   Moonlight interoperates but in *addition*  already supports OGGs.

You can choose not to interop with Windows and use our OGG video decoder ;-)

For internal use in Linux-only shops this would be ideal: you would not need licenses on the client or the server;   It would not interop with Microsoft's Silverlight out of the box

Miguel.

[Webmink]

On Sep 8, 4:04 am, Lluis Sanchez <sll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In any case, I think
> it is obvious that "commercial use" here means using the decoder in a
> commercial product, but not using the decoder in commercial facilities
> or for doing your job.

Why exactly do you think that's obvious? The terms specifically
isolate the grant of rights to "personal use" as well as "non-
commercial use".

S.

[Pepe]

Uggh.
So much time wasted over what is simply boilerplate MPEG-LA language.
Anyone that thinks that this boilerplate language prevents a user from
watching commercial content is either being disingenuous or is simply
stupid. And nobody is that stupid, so I can only conclude that the
former is the case here.

And another thing. Ideological purity has its place but so does
pragmatism. Are you saying, that as a matter of principle, you refuse
to watch any video that was encoded with a "proprietary codec"? You
watch no DVDs? You watch no digital cable? You watch no OTA SDT or
HDTV? You watch no .mov, .wmv, .mpg videos? You watch no DivX or
XVid videos? You just make do with OGG? I don't believe that for a
second. But if that's the case, you can simply use Moonlight with OGG
and nothing else if you want. Sure, you'll miss out on the large
amount of content that was made with proprietary codecs, but you've
been doing that all along by not watching DVDs, HDTV, etc, right?

Lastly, in this thread you focused soley on the MPEG-LA boilerplate
license issue, I suppose because that's the only issue that concerns
Moonlight, while the rest of your issues concerned Silverlight. But
what about the other issues that Miguel called you on? Like the $5
Silverlight liability, which you implied was so horrible, but is in
fact right in line with others (better than Java and Flash, and the
same as Helix) and the fact that Silverlight's EULA is just as good if
not better than Flash, Java, Helix, Alfresco, etc. Are you conceding
you were wrong on the non-MPEG-LA Silverlight issues?

[Simon Phipps]

On Sep 8, 2007, at 22:12, Pepe wrote:
> But
> what about the other issues that Miguel called you on? Like the $5
> Silverlight liability, which you implied was so horrible, but is in
> fact right in line with others (better than Java and Flash, and the
> same as Helix) and the fact that Silverlight's EULA is just as good if
> not better than Flash, Java, Helix, Alfresco, etc. Are you conceding
> you were wrong on the non-MPEG-LA Silverlight issues?

Actually no. I wasn't being comparative in my blog and I would not
recommend any of those other proprietary licenses within the context
of Free software either (including the Java one, which will not apply
to Java implementations derived from OpenJDK). We could niggle over
which is the most evil EULA but that wasn't & isn't the point.

S.

[Lluis Sanchez]

> > In any case, I think
> > it is obvious that "commercial use" here means using the decoder in a
> > commercial product, but not using the decoder in commercial facilities
> > or for doing your job.
>
> Why exactly do you think that's obvious? The terms specifically
> isolate the grant of rights to "personal use" as well as "non-
> commercial use".

It's obvious (to me) because any other interpretation doesn't make any
sense, taking into account what's the goal of Silverlight.

[theo...@gmail.com]

Your own words, posted from another place:

>>Will I have to suffer
>>the shadow of Microsoft patents over Silverlight when using or
>>developing Moonlight?

>>Not as long as you get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include
>>patent
>>coverage.

And you have the gall to accuse others of poor language skills, i.e.
not understanding whatever the hell the real situation with
silverlight/moonlight is?

Because, in other words, you're saying that Moonlight is 100% freshly
squeezed open source, (and then, in the tiny light grey text at the
bottom of the screen), BUT, Microsoft may sue you or threaten to sue
you unless you use OUR implementation of Moonlight.

What was that about open source again?