* Russell Coker:
> This factor makes it significantly different from the other programs
> which are afflicted with patent claims. If Thomson has made clear
> statements about a common use case of software based on their
> patents in Debian then it's quite different to a battle between
> Adobe and
* Josselin Mouette:
>> There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
>> patent licenses.
>
> But as I understand it, only the encoding patents are enforceable.
I've never seen a compelling argument why this should be the case.
The arguments looked more or less like wishful t
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:53, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
> patent licenses. There are a few references to a statement by some of
> the patent holders (Thomson IIRC, the company representing one of the
> larg
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:03:14PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 25 janvier 2006 à 11:53 +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> > Just to clarify since you put that emphasis on decoding:
> >
> > There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
> > patent licenses.
>
>
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I would like to point out that if SPI (Debian's parent) doesn't have
> rights to distribute (not just the individual DD), then this cannot
> possibly be legally distributed by Debian.
It was intendet for a non-free package, not for main (the policy matches
for non-free to
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 08:25 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Are you going to sign the contract? I'm sure not putting my signature on
> > anything about MP3s.
>
> I'm afraid I can't as a poor little NM :)
From the Book of Policy (v3.6.2.2), Section 2.3:
We reserve the ri
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:35 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want to
> > distribute their source, then that's just the MIT license.
>
> Yes, that's how I see it too.
>
> >
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:58 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
> > > MPEG patents probably
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
It's clear to me you've never had to use an iRiver's Ogg support. It
fails outside a limited bitrate range, drains battery faster, does not
read metadata, and is not available on all devices. Newer iRivers also
use a proprietary communications protocol that is not yet suppor
Le mercredi 25 janvier 2006 à 11:53 +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> Just to clarify since you put that emphasis on decoding:
>
> There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
> patent licenses.
But as I understand it, only the encoding patents are enforceable. If we
start
* Josselin Mouette:
> We are talking about a MP3 *decoding* plugin. Like the ones we
> already have in so many packages we have stopped counting.
Just to clarify since you put that emphasis on decoding:
There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
patent licenses. There a
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
> > MPEG patents probably have a good basis.
>
> To make it clear, this is a *radical* div
Le mercredi 25 janvier 2006 à 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker a écrit :
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
>
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want to
> distribute their source, then that's just the MIT license.
Yes, that's how I see it too.
> Plenty of GPLd applications in Debian still use GStreamer, so this
> doe
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Are you going to sign the contract? I'm sure not putting my signature on
> anything about MP3s.
I'm afraid I can't as a poor little NM :)
> How does Debian sign a contract anyway?
I was in a simliar situation with Real, where they wanted to have signed
a contract by a DD.
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> To get this license one must agree to a contract that forbids
> modification and further redistribution. It's not going to happen for
> Debian.
Ok, when its not DFSG-compliant but redistributable, why not put it in
non-free (except personal reasons like 'I don't support non-
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 07:59 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > To get this license one must agree to a contract that forbids
> > modification and further redistribution. It's not going to happen for
> > Debian.
>
> Ok, when its not DFSG-compliant but redistributable, why not p
Russell Coker wrote:
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
> patents probably have a good basis.
>
> Any software which is based on Frauhoffer patents (MP3 and other similar
> encoding systems) should be on an external archive.
>From a technical point of v
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 07:49 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
> > patents probably have a good basis.
> >
> > Any software which is based on Frauhoffer patents (MP3 and other similar
> > encoding sys
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
>
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
> patents pro
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
patents probably have a good basis.
Any software which is based on Frauhoffe
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 20:52 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:58:14PM +0100, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: Loic Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > * Package name: gst-fluendo-mp3
> > Version : 0.10.0
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:58:14PM +0100, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Loic Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: gst-fluendo-mp3
> Version : 0.10.0
> Upstream Author : Jan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Loic Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gst-fluendo-mp3
Version : 0.10.0
Upstream Author : Jan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.fluendo.com/resources/fluendo_mp3.php
* License : MIT
Description
24 matches
Mail list logo
