[Icecast] Frauenhofer signing off on mp3, ogg stream player for Macs?

Greg Ogonowski greg at indexcom.com
Wed May 17 07:01:12 UTC 2017

The comment here about the source code and encoder/decoder licensing is
completely correct.
StreamS HiFi Radio

-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin Scholz [mailto:epirat07 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 16 May, 2017 23:05
To: Greg Ogonowski; Icecast streaming server user discussions
Subject: Re: [Icecast] Frauenhofer signing off on mp3, ogg stream player for

I am not a lawyer, information in this email is no legal advice!

On 17 May 2017, at 2:09, Greg Ogonowski wrote:

> It's really pretty simple.
> You can download the code and build it all you want...   ...for 
> yourself.
> It cannot be distributed, sold, or used commercially in any way.
> That's all.
> /g.

That only applies to the source code. You still need to license the encoder
afaik, as it is not licensed. In theory you would buy a software encoder
from someone who has already licensed it and everything would be fine. But
all (?) open source decoders of course can't do that. So the burden to take
care of licensing is on you, just how it was with
mp3 and the LAME encoder.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Icecast [mailto:icecast-bounces at xiph.org] On Behalf Of Robert 
> Jeffares
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 May, 2017 17:03
> To: icecast at xiph.org
> Subject: Re: [Icecast] Frauenhofer signing off on mp3, ogg stream 
> player for Macs?
> I must say this is a very confusing issue.
> I generate AAC+ on an open source system which downloaded some code 
> during installation from the 3GPP source.
> It appears the encoding software is being freely distributed, and 
> hardware which decodes the stream pays a licence fee at point of 
> manufacture.
> We have such hardware. In a number of locations. One brand has AAC+ 
> only, not AAC.
> I note VLC also plays the encoded stream.
> Encoding and decoding uses sound cards, which have hard coded 
> processors on board, whose manufacturers presumably have paid various 
> patent holders for the appropriate rights.
> I am reasonably confident the patent holders would not have allowed me 
> to download the code without fee if they haven't already taken care of 
> their right to reward.
> Key point for me is that we are not making products for sale, we are 
> employing the technology to provide a stream for licenced products to 
> receive.
> ------------------------
>  From http://www.via-corp.com/us/en/licensing/aac/faq.html
> Are there use fees for AAC?
> No. License fees are due on the sale of encoders and/or decoders only.
> There are no patent license fees due on the distribution of bit-stream 
> encoded in AAC, whether such bit-streams are broadcast, streamed over 
> a network, or provided on physical media.
> ---------------------
> "In House" use appears not to be of interest to the patent holders.
> They, correctly, want to collect from products manufactured and sold 
> at a profit. It is in their interest for there to be source material.
> This is my opinion, based on my reading of the published information 
> from the patent holders.
> Now answering the original question: Icecast2 will carry a number of 
> streams both audio and video which are not all documented.
> Icecast>Icecast links over less then optimal WAN are generally robust,
> provided you keep within the limits of the connecting platform. The 
> software is essentially a delivery system. Setting the buffer to allow 
> for network delays gets over a fair percentage of the problems. Yes 
> you may have quite some delay. Usually it does not matter.  In one 
> case I found a faulty server in the path between our originating site 
> and transmission site was causing transmission delays we could not 
> buffer.
> [Emailing everyone on the whois information produced a result!]  I 
> have trialled a number of audio formats in various bitrates. MP3 
> turned out to be most reliable and we deliver mp3 to various 
> distribution services.
> I set up an AAC+ system because it could give me a low profile 
> backhaul off air monitor over a limited capacity ADSL circuit. It 
> worked so well I have slowly incorporated AAC+ feeds into other places 
> with good results. AAC+ out performs mp3. I prefer Darkice as an 
> encoder, others use liquidsoap. I also use glasscoder which works 
> well.
> AAC+ contains it's own header information so you don't have to use a
> suffix like .mp4  It seems to work in various smartphones, which I 
> assume have paid the royalty.
> regards
> Robert Jeffares
> On 16/05/17 20:51, Marvin Scholz wrote:
>> First: I am not a lawyer, this is no legal advice!
>> On 16 May 2017, at 0:25, Robert Jeffares wrote:
>>> Jack,
>>> I am using AAC+ encoded by Darkice and distributed on Icecast2 on a 
>>> Ubuntu server. I had to install a number of open source libraries 
>>> and compile darkice from source. No licence.
>> This sounds like it would violate the license, given that the FAQ on 
>> http://www.via-corp.com/us/en/licensing/aac/faq.html states:
>>> An AAC patent license is needed by manufacturers or developers of 
>>> end-user encoder and/or decoder products.
>> Additionally on the authors website for libaacplus it clearly says:
>>> These tarballs don't provide any 3GPP source code. It is downloaded 
>>> from 3GPP during compilation. To use package compiled by this code, 
>>> you may need a license from 3GPP.
>>> AAC+ codecs incorporate several patents, held by Philips, Dolby,
>>> Ericsson and Nokia. Companies holding patents for HE AAC v1 (SBR) 
>>> have formed a patent pool under Via Licensing to provide a single 
>>> point of license for product makers. Patents owned by Dolby and 
>>> Philips covering the Parametric Stereo used in HE AAC v2 (SBR+PS) 
>>> are not included in the Via Licensing pool and are licensed 
>>> separately by Dolby. Depending on law in your country, manufacturers 
>>> and developers may need to get a license. Because it is a shared 
>>> library, you may need special contract for each one application, 
>>> which links against this library, directly or indirectly.
>>> Please also note, that downloaded .doc file has a very restrictive
>>> license: No part may be reproduced except as authorized by written 
>>> permission. The copyright and the foregoing restriction extend to 
>>> reproduction in all media.
>> This is certainly not something I would like to see recommended to be 
>> used, on this mailing list.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icecast mailing list
>> Icecast at xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast
> _______________________________________________
> Icecast mailing list
> Icecast at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast
> _______________________________________________
> Icecast mailing list
> Icecast at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast

More information about the Icecast mailing list