h264 and software licenses

Question

Law in IT

x264 is an implementation of the h264 codec and comes with a lot of different software, the same vlc, for example.
What makes this possible, because the license for h264 implies rather big fees for using this codec?
If this is related to alternative implementations, then why doesn't FireFox do the same and include x264 in its distribution to display h264 by regular means?
I want to write my own player, I can’t figure out how to legally tie h264 to it without spending a lot of money on it. Using x264 would be a good option as long as it's legal.

Answer 1

Let me be corrected but I have such a picture.
1) MPEG LA requires royalty based algorithm patent. In those countries where there are no such patents (for example, in the Russian Federation and in part of Europe), this is not relevant. In addition, MPEG LA constantly extends the temporary free period for non-commercial use of h264 (again, only relevant where software patents are valid). This is why vlc pays nothing.
2) x264 is a specific implementation, and their site says that please use it as GPL, that is, open your sources too, or buy our commercial license (not to be confused with the MPEG LA license) if you don't want to open your sources. And yes, they will ask you for deductions only when the sales of the miracle player exceed 5000 pieces. These rights are already in force with us (in the Russian Federation, you can protect a specific implementation of the program and they say it seems even to defend the GPL).
In general, for clarification, you need to decide under what license the player will be, paid / free, to which market (RF or states).