Actually, you can and should. Its the difference between patents and copyrights. The (L)GPL pertains to the copyright on the actual code and the laws are (in comparison) fairly universal and well understood.
Patents on the other hand pertain to a method of doing something (separate from actual code) and are far from certain and vary widely between jurisdictions. The outcomes are decided in local courts based on a mix of precedent and who can spend the most on lawyers.
In short, copyrights and patents have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Well, I wouldn't say they don't have anything to do with each other. They are both forms of intellectual property law. While I would agree that patents are often subject to different regulations and burdens of proof, your assumption that all patent cases are flimsy is without basis. First, you mistake software patents for many traditional patents. For example, patents on drugs are routinely upheld in US courts.
You are correct that software patents can be nebulous. However, in the case of codec patents, like that of H.264, the new MPEG video standard, SCOTUS and patent cases have routinely upheld the validity of similar software patents.
For an overview of relevant statutes, I would point to the USPTO documents, which outline the standards that most software patents are viewed under (by the USPTO and many practicing US patent lawyers)[1]. While In re Bilski[2], recently granted a writ, may present a new view on some of the more spurious (and business-oriented) software patents, it seems that SCOTUS is more than willing to uphold the patents in practical implementation cases[3][4][5].
If this were a discussion based purely on ideology then upholding copyright but ignoring patent rights may be defensible, however to suggest that they will bring legal action to defend their copyright but to ignore or refuse that they should be held accountable in patent litigation is a tad hypocritical.
Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software; this is generally the model that open source works under in general (see, for example, LAME). In many jurisdictions, users can and do pay MPEG-LA licensing fees when using ffmpeg; no "infringement" takes place. I have worked for companies that have used ffmpeg and x264 in their systems; this is extremely standard procedure.
Also, most of the developers are based in Europe, where software patents are much more dubious than in the US.
Also, most of the developers are based in Europe, where software patents are much more dubious than in the US.
Most? I was aware that many were, but I know at least a couple are not. However, in my first comment I was very clear that I was speaking only to US developers -- Europeans, feel free to ignore.
Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software
Not in the United States. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."[1]
But they're not making the patented invention; they're making a description (the source code) of the patented invention. They're distributing the source code. Hence the moniker: "Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder" (it's a description of one).
On the other hand, distributors of binaries do have to take into account patent laws.
That is their claim, yes. As far as I know, no one has ever tested this in a US court. I would not be hopeful. Also, the initial term "Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder" referred to their use of the original ISO code along with a patch. Since one would have to use the MPEG/ISO code and you couldn't encode mp3 files only using the LAME patch/library, they avoided the patent issue. Since 2000 they have instead shipped source code with a complete rewrite of the ISO code. They also post a notice that an MP3 patent license may be required for use in some countries. According to the conventional interpretation of US patent law, the US would be one of them.
Edit: By the way, don't be fooled, our small legal disagreement doesn't affect my very positive view of you as a person and developer :)
> Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the software
"Under certain jurisdictions, there is a particular case of patent infringement called "indirect infringement." Indirect infringement can occur, for instance, when a device is claimed in a patent and a third party supplies a product which can only be reasonably used to make the claimed device."
You can infringe on a patent without any knowledge of said patent (by now, in software, I'd say this is the norm). Its a bit harder to do that when it comes to copyright! Plus ffmpeg is an international project. The SCOTUS (and its rulings on patents), while important, is still SCOTUS. That was all I was getting at.
Patents on the other hand pertain to a method of doing something (separate from actual code) and are far from certain and vary widely between jurisdictions. The outcomes are decided in local courts based on a mix of precedent and who can spend the most on lawyers.
In short, copyrights and patents have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.