On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 19:55 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Frank Murphy
<frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:20:30 -0400
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > This is nonsense. There are enough "licenses for the linux
>> > environment". A lot of vendors have licensed MP3 en/decoders that
>> > work on the linux. The point is that there is no licensed open
>> > source mp3 en/decoder.
>>
>> Name 2.
>
>
http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/
>
http://www.nero.com/enu/downloads-linux4-update.php
Neither of which address the existing MP3 patent issues, only software
copyright issues. Mind you, Most of these patents are finally
expiring, and the existing court cases have been.... oddm and usually
settled out of court. But there's nothing in those licenses that
protects you from the existing patent claims of Alcatel-Lucent, or of
Texas MP3 Technologies, or those of a Japanese electronics firm I used
to work for. (Ask privately if curious.)
One: you, drago01 and Frank are not in fact disagreeing. When drago01
wrote:
"This is nonsense. There are enough "licenses for the linux
environment". A lot of vendors have licensed MP3 en/decoders that work
on the linux. The point is that there is no licensed open source mp3
en/decoder."
he was saying more or less what you are. There are F/OSS MP3 decoders.
There are MP3 decoders with patent licenses. But there is no F/OSS MP3
decoder with a patent license.
Fluendo's decoder is an example of a non-F/OSS decoder which has a
patent license. mgp123 is an example of a F/OSS decoder which has no
patent license. RPM Fusion can include either type of decoder (though I
think in practice it includes only the 'F/OSS but not patent licensed'
type), but Fedora can include neither.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net