According to this blog article, the MPEG-LA specifically indicated that license fees are required even for open source software:
In response to your specific question, under the Licenses royalties are paid on all MPEG-4 Visual/AVC products of like functionality, and the Licenses do not make any distinction for products offered for free (whether open source or otherwise)…
However, like many patent-encumbered technologies, the licensing landscape is very complex and confusing (that's what lawyers do), so it's hard to say that a 2nd hand comment from an email sent by someone in the MPEG-LA organization can be considered definitive. If I were writing open source software, I'd probably just shy away from H.264 if at all possible (and maybe rely on system installed codec if that's an option). If I were writing commercial software, I'd definitely get a license, either directly or indirectly by licensing a library from an outfit that had a license.
MPEG-LA claims the patents they license are necessary to implementing H.264. A summary of their licensing terms doesn't show an obvious exception being made just because some software happens to be free. On the other hand, all of their language talks about codecs that are "sold". My guess is that you'd just about have to get the real license agreement (available via hardcopy only) to come to any solid conclusions.
As a worker in the video compression industry, I can offer my understanding (I am not a layer) that to just operate an H.264 codec legally you need a license.
Whether that is enforcible depends on how public or private you are about operating your codec.
Certainly if you purchase a commercial codec, say as part of some video editing software, then you've paid for a license. On the other hand, if you've downloaded ffmpeg and you run it without paying anything to anybody you are in violation. If you search out a contact within the licensing oarganization to send a check to, which I don't pretend would be simple, then you could conceivably arrange a license to run ffmpeg.
Whether you can announce and/or distribute a codec you've written without arranging for those who receive your codec to also receive a license is boarderline - clearly the licensing organization wishes you to do make such arrangements. Making an announcement is a public act, so you don't have any protection of privacy. Ffmpeg, on the other hand, gets away with being public and not making any licensing arrangements - however they are A) a project of significant size with many people willing to support it; B) very clear that they consider any onus to be on the user and not on them.
发布评论
评论（6）
根据 这篇博文中，MPEG-LA特别指出，即使是开源软件也需要许可费：
但是，就像对于许多受专利保护的技术，许可环境非常复杂和令人困惑（这就是律师所做的），因此很难说 MPEG-LA 组织中某人发送的电子邮件中的第二手评论可以被认为是明确的。如果我正在编写开源软件，如果可能的话，我可能会回避 H.264（如果可以的话，可能会依赖系统安装的编解码器）。如果我正在编写商业软件，我肯定会通过从拥有许可证的机构直接或间接地许可库来获得许可证。
抱歉完全没有帮助...
According to this blog article, the MPEG-LA specifically indicated that license fees are required even for open source software:
However, like many patent-encumbered technologies, the licensing landscape is very complex and confusing (that's what lawyers do), so it's hard to say that a 2nd hand comment from an email sent by someone in the MPEG-LA organization can be considered definitive. If I were writing open source software, I'd probably just shy away from H.264 if at all possible (and maybe rely on system installed codec if that's an option). If I were writing commercial software, I'd definitely get a license, either directly or indirectly by licensing a library from an outfit that had a license.
Sorry to be absolutely no help...
MPEG-LA 声称他们许可的专利对于实施 H.264 是必要的。 其许可条款摘要没有显示明显的内容仅仅因为某些软件恰好是免费的就例外。另一方面，他们所有的语言都谈论“出售”的编解码器。我的猜测是，您必须获得真正的许可协议（仅可通过硬拷贝获取）以得出任何可靠的结论。
MPEG-LA claims the patents they license are necessary to implementing H.264. A summary of their licensing terms doesn't show an obvious exception being made just because some software happens to be free. On the other hand, all of their language talks about codecs that are "sold". My guess is that you'd just about have to get the real license agreement (available via hardcopy only) to come to any solid conclusions.
作为视频压缩行业的从业者，我可以提供我的理解（我不是层），合法操作H.264编解码器需要许可证。
这是否可执行取决于您操作编解码器的公开程度或私密程度。
这是许可组织的网站：http://www.mpegla.com/main/default。 aspx
当然，如果您购买商业编解码器，例如作为某些视频编辑软件的一部分，那么您就已经支付了许可证费用。另一方面，如果您下载了 ffmpeg 并且运行它而没有向任何人支付任何费用，那么您就违法了。如果您在许可组织内找到要发送支票的联系人（我认为这并不简单），那么您可以想象获得运行 ffmpeg 的许可证。
您是否可以宣布和/或分发您编写的编解码器而不安排那些接收您的编解码器的人也获得许可证是界限 - 显然许可组织希望您做出这样的安排。发布公告是一种公开行为，因此您的隐私不受任何保护。另一方面，FFmpeg 可以公开并且不做任何许可安排 - 然而它们是 A）一个规模很大的项目，有很多人愿意支持它； B）非常清楚，他们认为任何责任都在用户身上，而不是他们身上。
As a worker in the video compression industry, I can offer my understanding (I am not a layer) that to just operate an H.264 codec legally you need a license.
Whether that is enforcible depends on how public or private you are about operating your codec.
This is the licensing organization's web site: http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx
Certainly if you purchase a commercial codec, say as part of some video editing software, then you've paid for a license. On the other hand, if you've downloaded ffmpeg and you run it without paying anything to anybody you are in violation. If you search out a contact within the licensing oarganization to send a check to, which I don't pretend would be simple, then you could conceivably arrange a license to run ffmpeg.
Whether you can announce and/or distribute a codec you've written without arranging for those who receive your codec to also receive a license is boarderline - clearly the licensing organization wishes you to do make such arrangements. Making an announcement is a public act, so you don't have any protection of privacy. Ffmpeg, on the other hand, gets away with being public and not making any licensing arrangements - however they are A) a project of significant size with many people willing to support it; B) very clear that they consider any onus to be on the user and not on them.
您不需要许可证即可编写源代码。 MPEG-LA 的意见是您需要一个来分发它。
You don't need a license to write source code. MPEG-LA's opinion is that you need one to distribute it.
您需要根据您计划投入市场的方式获得许可，以任何您计划从中赚钱的方式（例如广告），然后您将有责任向专利持有者付款（此处为x264），了解更多信息http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages /AgreementExpress.aspx
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020400.html
您可以通过向 MPEG LA 发送详细信息来获取硬拷贝。
You need license according to the way you planning to put in the market, In any sort of way you planning to make money out of it( like advertisements ) Then you will liable to pay to the patent holders (here x264), For more info http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/AgreementExpress.aspx
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020400.html
and you could get a hard copy from MPEG LA by sending details to them.
是的，至少在美国是这样。
Yes, you do, at least in the United States.