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
larger
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
patents
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
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* divergence
* 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
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 to
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 have a
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.
Plenty of
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 :
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 :
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
Upstream
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 Frauhoffer
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 probably
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 view,
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
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 systems)
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 put it in
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.
18 matches
Mail list logo
