wtf

I first asked how we should think about a mature standard like H.264 in 2026, where many but not all patents have expired. "Maturity changes the economic context, not the legal framework," he said. "The analysis shifts from an emerging innovation platform to a legacy but embedded infrastructure. That shift can affect valuation, but it does not nullify licensing obligations." Courts evaluating FRAND rates still look to comparable licenses and consider the composition, strength, and remaining life of the patents still in force.

It's possible in theory to use the free patents for x264, but it requires in practice a detailed claim-by-claim analysis of the relevant patents and the specific implementation. . Patent claims do not necessarily map neatly to profile labels, so determining whether a subset is truly non-infringing typically requires careful legal and technical analysis.

The baseline / main profiles is however OK and free to use, but the analysis is still required, because patent rights are strictly territorial. The infringement analysis typically turns on three factors: where encoding occurs, where content is transmitted from and where it is received or used.

The FAQ is also very interesting to learn about patents and software cases.

Une histoire de prédation en deux toots.

2017 : j'achète une licence oXygen. Soit-disant à vie. Quelque chose comme 200 euros mais bon, pour une licence permanente ça vaut le coup.

2019 : y a de plus en plus de mises à jour, c'est chiant, et je dois faire bosser des étudiants, je trouve une alternative un peu moins bien mais gratuite, j'utilise moins oXygen.

2024 : ma licence n'est plus valable (je m'en rends compte au hasard d'un changement d'ordinateur, oups je peux plus installer oXygen depuis la version de 2020 en fait). Je me passe d'oXygen.

2025 : je tombe sur un os, il y a un truc que je ne peux faire bien qu'avec oXygen. Je regarde les tarifs pour racheter une licence. Je crie.

Le raisonnement se tient. Avec les évènements actuels, on peut justifier que la licence MIT est une licence conservatrice.

Voir The Value of Open Source Software

Le soucis avec la licence MIT et autres très permissive peut être réduit au paradoxe de la tolérance:

le paradoxe de la tolérance : en étant tolérant avec tout le monde sans limite, on tolère aussi des intolérants qui vont nuire à la tolérance générale.

Concernant les entreprises produisant des services numériques

On estime que les firmes devraient dépenser 3 fois plus en logiciel si l’open source n’existait pas.

Concernant l'IA, la position actuelle est partagée par AI Industry is Trying to Subvert the Definition of “Open Source AI”.

Quoting directly from the GPL: The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

If a project is so difficult to build, package or redistribute that the only practical way is to use docker then this is hardly #FOSS

I’ve come to realize that the relicensing trend towards non-compete licenses has exposed single-vendor Open Source software for what it truly is: proprietary software in hiding

One vendor can turns the (own) project into a proprietary one.

• Do What The Fuck You Want to Public License - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
• Beerware license - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware#License
• No problem Bugroff License - http://tunes.org/legalese/bugroff.html
• Don’t Ask Me About It License
• Good Luck With That Public License - https://github.com/me-shaon/GLWTPL
• The Woody Guthrie Public License
• Demerden Sie Sich License - https://dssl.flyounet.net/licenses/
• The Death and Repudiation License
• Chicken dance license - https://github.com/supertunaman/cdl/blob/master/COPYING
• The Fight Club Licence - https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/fight-club-license.md
• The Offendo General Pain In The Ass License
• The Schrödinger license https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/schrodinger-license.md
• The Bugs License r2 - https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/bugs-license.md
• The Anyone But Stallman License - https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/stallman-license.md
• The Mephistopheles License - https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/mephistopheles-license.md
• Why The Fuck Would You Even Do That Holy Shit Public License - https://git.sr.ht/~boringcactus/gotbruh/tree/main/item/LICENSE.md (refactoring in Python 2 is forbidden)

More realistic:

• Don't be a dick License - https://dbad-license.org/
• Anti-Capitalist Software License [non «libre»]- https://anticapitalist.software/
• The please public licence - https://web.archive.org/web/20200814151216if_/https://awoo.space/@typhlosion/1433790

A sort of MIT-based licence, in which everything not prohibited is permitted.

There is also the Normally closed licence, in which everything not permitted is prohibited

Easy to understand with Wikipedia ^^

Cette licence est courte. Autant prendre le temps de la lire.

Elle est de plus efficacement expliquée dans ce billet de blog. On se rend compte que du logiciel sous licence MIT rentre en opposition à d'autres lois dans le cadre de vente (cf: three default rules for “implied warranties")

We’ve seen that despite some crusty verbiage and lawyerly affectation, one hundred and seventy one little words can get a hell of a lot of legal work done, clearing a path for open-source software through a dense underbrush of intellectual property and contract.

La licence la plus permissive du monde :D

Une liste non-exhaustive des différentes licences orientées vers le libre.