When I look up footage via VLC, and go to TOOLS and 'codec info', I get: it's therefore more than unintelligible, that linux users do not get just the same support to use the typical en/decoding solutions on this particular platform - although, the actual customers would still have to take care about all the necessary licensing demands just like on the other operating systems.

royalty claims are not applicable in all countries, they obviously do not legitimate most of the practical usage scenarios of h264 en/decoding of an application like davinci resolve on those two commercial platforms neither. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA,Īpart from the fact, that this patent resp. INCLUDED WITH THIS PRODUCT IN A SINGLE ARTICLE. LICENSES EXTEND TO ANY OTHER PRODUCT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PRODUCT IS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE SUCH VIDEO. STANDARDS”) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC, VC-1, MPEG-4 PART 2 AND MPEG-2 VIDEO THAT WASĮNCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR WAS

MPEG-2 VIDEO PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OFĪ CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE STANDARDS (“VIDEO 'THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC, THE VC-1, THE MPEG-4 PART 2 VISUAL, AND THE Yes, this factual limitation on the linux edition of resolve are not only very uncomfortable, they are also more than questionable in their legal justification, because with every windows and mac os system you'll get a license information which clearly states:

Davinci resolve requirements linux