
Vysor is no longer available – H.264 licensing - mmastrac
https://plus.google.com/u/1/110558071969009568835/posts/717zTopZSWf
======
Sephr
He included an unlicensed H.264 decoder in his app. He could have avoided this
by either using Chrome's built-in APIs[1], utilizing Cisco's free H.264
implementation[2], or simply paying the license fees himself. Google and Cisco
are already paying the fees to make developers lives easier.

As much as I hate patent trolls, this isn't really patent trolling.

To make matters worse, I informed Koushik Dutta about this possible issue back
in 2015[3] and he closed my GitHub issue and ignored it. I'm not surprised at
the outcome.

[1]: [https://developer.chrome.com/native-
client/pepper_dev/c/stru...](https://developer.chrome.com/native-
client/pepper_dev/c/struct_p_p_b___video_encoder__0__2)

[2]: [http://www.openh264.org/](http://www.openh264.org/)

[3]:
[https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84](https://github.com/koush/vysor.io/issues/84)

~~~
userbinator
_utilizing Cisco 's free H.264 implementation_

What difference does it make? It even seems backwards in some sense --- that
writing code based on a freely available spec means you have to pay a license
fee, yet someone else can give away their implementation freely? IANAL, so
perhaps what we think of as the crazy and contorted bureaucratic mess that is
the patent system would make sense in some strange and twisted way to those
who designed it.

~~~
detaro
You don't have to pay for writing code based on the spec, you have to pay for
users using it. Just as Cisco does for users of their free binaries. (They
probably don't pay all that much extra since they already pay tons of fees for
their own products, and it has to be some kind of flat-rate deal since they
can't track precise user numbers)

If you take their code and compile it yourself, you are on the hook for fees
of users, just as if you wrote the code yourself.

I don't like it, but it is a logical option that if someone pays it is the one
responsible for making the "product" (=binary including the codec)

~~~
ndesaulniers
> If you take their code and compile it yourself, you are on the hook for fees
> of users

I'm sorry, how is using the source which needs compilation different from
using the binary provided?

~~~
pjmlp
I would assume it falls under a separate license scheme, hence why programmers
shouldn't try to be lawyers.

------
slashink
Keep an eye on Alliance of Open Media (
[http://aomedia.org](http://aomedia.org) ). Basically Amazon, Cisco, Google,
Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla and Netflix got fed up with the licensing model of
H.265/HEVC which is even worse than that of H.264 (dual patent pools which
different licensing terms where you have to pay both).

Intent is for it to be royalty free, open and supported in major browsers and
devices.

------
userbinator
Couldn't he have just added a disclaimer that the app may contain patented
technology, but software patents are not enforceable everywhere? I doubt
FFmpeg has paid a single cent of license fees to anyone, and yet it's survived
and still available for anyone to download and use:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Legal_aspects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Legal_aspects)

I believe the way to fight software patents is civil disobedience.

~~~
TD-Linux
Downstream projects of FFmpeg such as VLC certainly have been affected [1].
The interesting thing is that most of the problems have been with audio
formats - this is the first I've seen for an open source project using H.264.

The Wikipedia article is a bit misleading because although it cites the EU as
an example, most software patents are allowed in the EU, including many H.264
patents. I would encourage you to fight software patents not by infringing,
but by using royalty-free alternatives.

[1]
[https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032](https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032)

------
DiabloD3
Honestly, we need to start changing the laws to prevent patent abuse. If your
patents become part of a must-implement standard (with your permission, of
course, mpeg-la members have obviously given theirs), then your patents become
null for anyone implementing that standards, ie, you are forced to license
them for free.

Using patents like this is pretty much the patent equivalent of entrapment.

Also, why isn't Vysor just using the HMTL5 facilities to use hardware h264
enc/decs?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Also, why isn't Vysor just using the HMTL5 facilities to use hardware h264
> enc/decs?

Or the built-in Chrome API for that, PPB_VideoEncoder:
[https://developer.chrome.com/native-
client/pepper_dev/c/stru...](https://developer.chrome.com/native-
client/pepper_dev/c/struct_p_p_b___video_encoder__0__2)

~~~
koushikdutta
Vysor was written in early 2015. VideoEncoder was not available until around
December 2015.

But yes, I've switched.

------
withinrafael
Just wanted to provide some bits about the MPEG-LA AVC patent portfolio
licensing (which includes H.264 enc/dec). I went through this process for work
and it's pretty painless. The licensors are very responsive will help you find
a solution. They're not trying to shake you down.

(I'm not familiar with Vysor but whatever you do, stay away from libvlc if
you're looking for a decoder/encoder. That stuff is not kosher in most
countries. ffmpeg is a gray area too.)

Some highlights from a few years ago (may differ slightly now but unlikely):

* No licensing fee

* Free for private/personal, non-commercial usage (e.g. non-monetized YouTube, cat videos)

* < 100,000 units = no royalties! (Unit defined as encoder or decoder)

* > 100,000 units = 0.20c/unit

The process is simple, you ping them, they FedEx you a stack of easy to read
papers, sign it, and mail it back.

[IANAL so obvious use-common-sense boilerplate goes here.]

~~~
Nullabillity
> They're not trying to shake you down.

... yes, that's exactly what they are doing?

~~~
withinrafael
It's my understanding that a "shake down" is an act built on /unreasonable/
demands. This is hardly unreasonable though do recognize that's subjective.

------
dchuk
Damn, I love Vysor, and was actually using it for a big product demo while
this apparently was getting removed from Chrome app store. Real bummer.

~~~
blindfly
Do you happen to still have the extension installed you could pack...? I'd
love to get my hands on it.

~~~
HappyTypist
The extension is open source and on GitHub.

~~~
blindfly
You got it! Thanks for the tip. I just found my way over there and the whole
thing is 100x better than I expected to find. Not an ad in sight and not even
a message asking for donations. I'm thirsty for more now!

------
tacos
If we want people to pay us for software, we have to contribute toward a
system where value is added and money is extracted as goods and/or services of
increasing value are developed and transition between entities. This radical
concept is known as "industry."

The alternative is to be mindless coder drones that produce "content" for
people who don't value it but profit from it. Like musicians producing music
for music companies but somehow not getting paid for it, you too can be a
doofus with a Google+ account adding value to the Android or Apple ecosystem
with your free app. Get "wrote an app" on your resume, make a snappy logo,
then flounce out with a sad Google+ post to extract maximum brogrammer value!

I increasingly see these issues as self-serving ways for some dude to get out
of the hassles of maintaining some bullshit free app with 8 users.

Somewhere there's a real company who'll cut the $50k check. Somewhere there's
a hungrier, smarter developer who'll work around the issue. Somewhere there's
a dirtier, angrier developer who'll fight for what's right against inane
licensing terms. This developer is none of the above, nor is he contributing
to furthering the industry. Begone.

------
blindfly
I didn't even know this existed, and now it's gone! I've been looking for
something like this for awhile and would gladly pay for it. The few similar
things out there are all clunky, slow, and just not up to the task. I'd throw
in $50 or so just for this if it worked :)

------
Ace17
As the decoder was software based, preparing a switch to VP9 or AV1 may be a
strategic move.

~~~
koushikdutta
Most Android phones only have an h264 encoder.

