[Ring] Patent-encumbered or proprietary codecs?

[J.B. Nicholson]

Thomas Daede wrote:
> (plus, as you may have guessed by now, I'm really not a huge fan of a
> GNU project endorsing or supporting proprietary codecs)

Are the codecs you identified (H.264, H.263, and MPEG-4 ASP) proprietary or 
patent-encumbered?

Proprietary software is software that doesn't respect a user's software 
freedom. Typically only the proprietor has the complete source code to the 
software so users other than the proprietor who have a copy of that program 
have a copy under a license that doesn't let them run, inspect, share, and 
modify the program at any time for any reason.

Patent-encumbered software doesn't necessarily restrict all users the same 
way. Patent-encumbered codecs can be implemented as free software because 
not all users are under the same patent regime; a program that is 
patent-encumbered can prevent some users from using the program in freedom 
but not other users.

For example, there were MP3 encoders and decoders that were free software 
for some users during the time Fraunhofer and Thompson held patents that 
covered MP3s. Users in the US, for instance, couldn't use MP3 in freedom 
because of software idea patents that covered MP3. But that wasn't a 
problem for all users. I understand that those patents have expired[1] and 
that allows US users to encode and decode MP3s in freedom (which means the 
language in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#MP3Player 
needs to change).


[1] Fraunhofer's language on MP3 has shifted from endorsing usage to 
discouraging usage in favor of AAC, which I take it is patent-encumbered by 
Fraunhofer. https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/76442.html summarizes the 
situation: "We can finally welcome MP3 into the family of truly Free codecs!".