On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:42:26PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
RA As usual Heise got it right:
RA http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-28.08.02-000/ (German).
c't is a good info source, but this time they seem biased. First of all,
they completely miss the point that you made below:
RA
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 04:55:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
RM we definitely need an mp3 decoder in debian if we want to fight the
RM patent oppression at all. i think we need another branch for that
RM kind of problems.
Debian/liberty in APT over FreeNet, anyone?
--
Dmitry Borodaenko
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:28:23AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
RB I do think that discouraging the use of patent-encumbered
RB standards is a useful way to fight patent oppression. It sends
RB the message that a patented standard is a dead standard. Maybe
RB companies will review their
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:22, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
Discouraging use of patent-encumbered technologies is the same as
political emigration: it is the easy way out of the oppression, but it
is nothing else but a defeat, and when you are fleeing to another
country, this defeat will follow you
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 05:56:08PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
DB Discouraging use of patent-encumbered technologies is the same as
DB political emigration: it is the easy way out of the oppression,
DB but it is nothing else but a defeat, and when you are fleeing to
DB another country, this
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think it would be fair to tar mpg321 with the brush of non-free when
^un?
that clearly wasn't your intent when you wrote it. Having a giant
corporation smash your First Amendmendment[1] right to express yourself
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:15:48AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think it would be fair to tar mpg321 with the brush of non-free when
^un?
Yes.
that clearly wasn't your intent when you wrote it. Having a giant
Hi All,
we had similar problem with AGNULA, about mp3 and after an accurate
investigation
we have reached the following conclusions (a deliverable on free software will
be
soon ready at www.agnula.org):
(Inter alia i suggest to read the following document,
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:53:11 -0400,
marco trevisani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) to my knowledge, neither bladeenc nor lame do use these algorithms
(they are mainly for encoding at low bit rate, something these
encoders don't do well - they were'nt designed for that)
4) however, from what I
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 11:39, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
If they insist we are violating their patent, it is their job
to prove it, no? Guilty unless proven otherwise is illegal
(at least in Japan).
Yes, this is true. However, we also have the burden of hiring legal
counsel to defend ourselves, and
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:39, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
3) to my knowledge, neither bladeenc nor lame do use these algorithms
(they are mainly for encoding at low bit rate, something these
encoders don't do well - they were'nt designed for that)
4) however, from what I understand Fraunhofer and
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 04:55:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:16, Robert Millan wrote:
currently non-US is the only place where it can be without breaking law.
This is incorrect: mp3 patents exist in
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 05:15:00PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
we definitely need an mp3 decoder in debian if we want to fight the
patent oppression at all. i think we need another branch for that kind
of problems.
lol, I doubt it would help. Just go to US patent office website and
do a
Joey a écrit :
| To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995,
| Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed
software
| decoders. For commercially sold decoders primarily hardware mp3
players
| the per-unit royalty has always
Hi,
I have been waiting all along for someone to post this, but nobody
does, so...
As usual Heise got it right:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-28.08.02-000/ (German).
Essentially, the relevant change to the MP3 license was already made
1.5 years ago, but apparently nobody noticed until
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:42:48PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
I have been waiting all along for someone to post this, but nobody
does, so...
As usual Heise got it right:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-28.08.02-000/ (German).
I posted the other story (with Thomson official
On 08/30/2002 06:42:48 AM Richard Atterer wrote:
As usual Heise got it right:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-28.08.02-000/ (German).
Or, for you English speakers,
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/data/jk-28.08.02-008/
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:44:03PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:34, Robert Millan wrote:
Also since this depends on mpg321 it'd have to be in non-US.
Certainly not. mpg321 isn't in non-US now, and probably won't ever be.
currently non-US is the only place where it can be
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:16, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:44:03PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:34, Robert Millan wrote:
Also since this depends on mpg321 it'd have to be in non-US.
Certainly not. mpg321 isn't in non-US now, and probably won't ever
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:16, Robert Millan wrote:
currently non-US is the only place where it can be without breaking law.
This is incorrect: mp3 patents exist in non-US places too, like Germany.
we definitely need an mp3 decoder in
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
If fraunhofer say that you are allowed to distribute mp3 players for
free (but not for cost), then they must be put in non-free. And since
they have patents all around the world, they can't be put in non-us.
It's my interpretation of
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:36:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In other words, if you write some free software, it's not your fault if
some company decides 15 minutes or 15 years later that they had a patent
on an algorithm you used, and sent packs of lawyers out to eradicate
your software
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:34:35AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-29
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: oggasm
Upstream: Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://oggasm.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Millan wrote:
* Package name: oggasm
Upstream: Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://oggasm.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : MP3 to Ogg converter
I'm not the ITPer, Sean
Craig a écrit :
Furthermore, with the recent announcement of patent royalties from
Frauenhofer, it seems that Debian may need to remove all packages that
are covered by the mp3 patents, at which point an mp3-to-vorbis
converter would either be removed, or would be dependent on software
Fabien Penso wrote:
I think you will hear soon than the person who posted that to Slashdot
was wrong and misunderstood the license.
i think the PR firm is trying to cover up something.
the license page makes no exception for freely distributed decoders.
-john
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:31:39PM +0200, Fabien Penso wrote:
,
| From: Steve Syatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: mp3 licensing
| Date: 28 Aug 2002 11:40:10 -0700
|
| Dear Patrick,
|
| I am the public relations person for Thomson
Fabien Penso wrote:
I think you will hear soon than the person who posted that to Slashdot
was wrong and misunderstood the license.
See the following...
,
| From: Steve Syatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: mp3 licensing
| Date: 28 Aug
On 08/29/2002 02:45:01 PM Michael Cardenas wrote:
can you please post the company statement that is refferred here?
Per this web page, http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html, it
will cost Debian $50K per program or $0.75 per apt-get (?)
There is no exception under any circumstances.
Michael a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:31:39PM +0200, Fabien Penso wrote:
[...]
can you please post the company statement that is refferred here?
[...]
Here is the rest of the message. Someone got in touch with us for
http://linuxfr.org/ and this should be published tomorrow.
| To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995,
| Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed software
| decoders. For commercially sold decoders primarily hardware mp3 players
| the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:34, Robert Millan wrote:
Also since this depends on mpg321 it'd have to be in non-US.
Certainly not. mpg321 isn't in non-US now, and probably won't ever be.
However, if the time comes that we think it's necessary to move mp3
players to non-*FREE*, I'm going to ask that
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-29
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: oggasm
Upstream: Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://oggasm.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : MP3 to Ogg converter
I'm not the ITPer, Sean Kellogg
Robert Millan wrote:
* Package name: oggasm
Upstream: Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://oggasm.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : MP3 to Ogg converter
I'm not the ITPer, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] packaged
orgasm but
34 matches
Mail list logo
