Corporations can and will be perse prosecuted, if they don’t or can’t pay up.
The only way this can be dealt with is what Ubuntu/Canonical and Redhat are doing.
An independent 3rd party has to supply the Patent encumbered codecs. This has been necessary for as long as I can recall. as far back pre 2000, and from when I started using Linux with Mandrake Linux… Mandrake Linux was also a corporate Entity, in the same way that Manjaro is.
Due to they way the repository system works it is easy for each user to add such a repository. In addition, there seems to be no legal issue for the developer of the OS to make it even easier to add the 3rd party repository, as Canonical does, and I suspect Red Hat does.
Unfortunately that is the way things currently are.
If this is to change people need to convince their respective Governments that this situation must change.
While that Mesa package is built with h264/h265 enabled, they could be disabled and the package would still be there only providing royalty-free codecs.
However if you search x265 you’ll probably find it, but you won’t find Canonical on the licensee list. They’re still licensed for h264 though.
The way Ubuntu handles it is the “Universe” and “Multiverse” repositories. They are “community maintained” and I believe both are disabled by default, of course they are trivial to enable.
It is really EASY to distribute those codecs.
Just ask the user to explicitly assume the responsibility for those proprietary softwares.
Since the user legally own the hardware AND the software (drivers for windows/linux) are free to download, the user has to have a copy of the windows drivers downloaded to be legally ok.
Ask the user if he wants to download the AMD drivers and open a browser to the drivers download page.
That’s it. Once he downloaded the windows/linux drivers he technically acquired the license for the codecs.
You can now install the mesa va enabled packages.
This conversation is all useless unless @philm is reading these.
I don’t think manjaro will change their inconsistent approach with regard to patents. Removing all patented codecs would mean that every new user will be left to himself/herself to find codecs somehow to play them at all. That would give the distro far more bad reputation and discourage user adoption.
Ideally, I would have preferred they cared about mesa as much as they care about intel-vaapi, h264, h265 etc. Or just move them all to a different repo that user has to enable from pamac manually or preferably in calamares installer itself (kind of like fedora). That would be the true implementation of better safe than sorry approach. The current approach is simply better do whats in trend
When they push such change there must have been a consensus that such change was necessary to avoid possible infringement law suits.
I understand it is a pain but law is law - laws is intended to create an agreeable environment for everybody. You cannot just abandon one law because you disagree?
No that is not what I am saying - and I want to state that my comments are my personal understanding of the matters and that I - as a former business owner and from a business perspective - fully understand why the Manjaro GMBH need to address it.
What I am saying - is that entities which pre-installs an operating system - which provides access to the patented/copyrighted functions - especially entities based in US - may have a legal concern if their use of said operating system - which provides access to H264 and H265 as part of the operating system - would be considered will full infringement in a court of law.
They want to avoid such court action - and as such they may have - in light of the public attention the matter has gotten - addressed their concerns to Manjaro GMBH - because Manjaro GMBH is the legal entity between Manjaro as Operating system and the US based legal entity - which has then resulted in Manjaro following same course of action as other major Linux distribution.
Developers from other distributions has chosen to add the package containing the possibly infringing meas component to a secondary repository and Manjaro users has the same choice - it is fairly simple to create your mesa package where the codecs are enabled and since you are the owner of said hardware you have no legality to address - unlike the entities which mass distribute hardware and mass enabling the hardware to use the codecs - which is what this whole discussions is about - the entity passing on the hardware does have the legality to pass on the license to use the hardware they distribute.
So to get hardware accelerated decode using Manjaro - you build you own version of mesa.
mesa already exist in AUR for various purposes - simply pick one that fits your use-case and be done with it.
We got the point about patent infringement. But no one here gets why its only VAAPI with mesa and not intel-vaapi package or h264 or h265 packages that are already pre-installed and present in manjaro’s repos.
If you want to avoid patent infringement, i can not see how including those packages does not cause it. So as of now, you have inconvenienced mesa users, and still not avoided the risk of lawsuits through patent infringements.
That appears to be very user friendly and bug free method of doing things /s. Is this really the advise you are trying to give to all manjaro users? Remember that beginners benefit from hardware accelerated decode too, and find it desirable. Also, compare the user-friendliness to methods in other distros, which I have listed in the first comment
Well - it is not up to me to decide/advise/recommend what an end user will/should do or not do.
I am only pointing out that this is a complicated matter and Manjaro as a company and a distribution need to avoid riding the paragraphs as those paragraphs might as well throw you off the horse.
But it seems to me that enabling the hardware codecs on Linux - is up to the user - because if the distro does it it may become an issue - only the end user - actually owning the hardware may be allowed to put the pieces together.
Bingo. This is the only thing I would like to understand. Do nvidia and intel pay for the licence? Or where is the difference? Are other posters correct even?
This has nothing to do with Manjaro (kinda), I would generally like to understand it.
I don’t think this discussion will lead to anywhere because none of us is a patent lawyer. Why not just consult one and post his advice here?
Back to the topic, mesa-git or the proprietary driver might be the solution to go for now.
If you read the post you responded to closely, it does imply (perhaps inadvertently) that the infringement in that case would be wilful, but as it has not garnered the same attention, that the infringement is more likely to go unnoticed.
While I dislike the outcome here and will be certainly considering closely my next choice of OS in light of this, Id highlight that your argument here boils down to “if you cant eliminate risk, why bother”. By eliminating one (higher likelihood) potential lawsuit, they are controlling risk. The fact that other, lower likelihood potential lawsuits still exist does not mean that risk has not been avoided.
And I have repeatedly told about the solution, which minimally inconveniences users, and saves manjaro the litigation trouble of all patented codecs, which is this
@Blu3wolf , you should read it too, because even though applying a small bandage to a big would is somewhat helpful, proper treatment is still better.
In short, manjaro needs to:
Have an unofficial repo
Repo contains packages with patented codec support, such as mesa, intel-vaapi, h264, h265, vlc etc or any other that may come up in future or exists in repos currently.
The repo is not enabled by default.
Calamares installer shows a page to enable this repo before installation with all necessary warnings
It is unselected by default and user has to manually enable it from within calamares (or from pamac after installation).
This is useful because:
Provides proper solution to users instead of “whatever they do is not my concern”.
Saves manjaro from litigation from all packages that could infringe patents.
You see, if manjaro properly complied with patent laws, user wouldn’t be able to play any h.264 or h.265 video in a fresh install. Of course that is not feasible. That is why most distros eventually adopted a similar approach that I listed above
Sounds like a fancy way of distributing code with your hardware, and thus not solving the problem from a liability perspective. But, seeing as its not my specialty, and not my jurisdiction, Id take my take with a big serve of salt.
That is not the solution - in your opinion maybe …
Why Manjaro? Why not you - since you are the eager one?
Why should Manjaro as distribution do so?
I remember back in time where MP3 has similar restrictions.
To have it legally you download the source, compile and install it.
Same goes for hardware accelerated h264 and h265 which is what this is all about.
Download the source, compile and install.
Forgive for saying this out loud - your demand that Manjaro should do it for you and make it available in some thrid party unofficial source is the demand from a member of the curling generation.
I do not think Nvidia, AMD and Intel paid for it. But I figured MPEG LA would pay or help Nvidia, Intel and AMD to build its own H265 and H264 in their hardware and advertised the codecs to the whole world. That’s why MPEG LA is the problem with some Linux distros.
Plugging your ears and going “la-la-la-la-canthearyou” when being told that even the software decoders/encoders violate the patents is definitely not the solution either.
Other distros with competent legal teams have already solved this problem. You already have a “community” repository don’t you? Move the stuff there and leave it disabled by default and you’re on par with Ubuntu legally.
You are not taking into account that maintaining yet another repo now for non-free-patented packages and the accompanying work in maintaining those packages.
I am glad I have retired from that stuff - I don’t see another repo happen for that sole purpose.
And your reference to software encoding is not valid - as this is usually in the browser or another application where the vendor of the software has the liability.
You are wearing your consumer hat - you appear to have forgotten that Manjaro as a distribution is a community project driven by a few dedicated maintainers.
The Manjaro business project is two people @philm and @oberon.
From a consumer point of view I understand your frustration but you are not a consumer in this context. A consumer has paid a fee for the software and you haven’t paid a dime for the usage of Manjaro.
So whatever decision the team makes to keep the distribution in a maintainable state - I really don’t have a problem with that - but I don’t see myself as consumer either - at least not in this context.
So if you are that eager to have it your way - by all means go ahead - maintain a repo of packages as you see fit - but don’t demand Manjaro to do it for you.
Because I don’t maintain the distro. I don’t have the means to modify calamares or pamac. And if I wished to be a maintainer, i would have started my own distro long ago. Also, i don’t lose anything. Its the distro that suffers, by being less competitive and accessible in features compared to others.
This is your misinformation. User only needs to download it manually (source or binary). There is no obligation to compile it.
I know that. I have already switched to a different distro that does an better job on my amd hardware. However, doing something just for the sake of doing is useless. I hate when open source projects start beating this drum. It is no excuse to do a bad job, provided when there are literal examples all around on how the job can be done well
