I'll dare to take the other route and ask: what is now holding back
software such as mplayer/mencoder, transcode and mjpegtools from
entering Debian?
Last time mplayer came up on debian-legal (the proper place for
questions like this), the problem was unclear licensing.
If the unclear
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Frederik Dannemare:
I'll dare to take the other route and ask: what is now holding back
software such as mplayer/mencoder, transcode and mjpegtools from
entering Debian?
Same as ever, sufficiently influential people oppose it.
Well they
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
* David Balaic:
Florian Weimer wrote:
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Yes, but how is then there a ton of MPEG code in debian (Sarge),
Florian Weimer wrote:
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Yes, but how is then there a ton of MPEG code in debian (Sarge),
but LAME is banned ?
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:32:41AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Encoders only, not decoders.
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:06:53PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Encoders only, not
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:56:43PM +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:06:53PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
It's all
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 12:56, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Encoders only, not decoders. Decoders for anything probably cannot be
patented.
Really? AFAIR every producent of mobile mp3 player had to pay patent
grants, to be
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:01:53PM +, Will Newton wrote:
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 12:56, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
It's all encumbered with patents. Encoders *and* decoders.
Encoders only, not decoders. Decoders for anything probably cannot be
patented.
Really? AFAIR
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 15:46, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And every set top box manufacturer pays for their MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4)
licenses.
Those are the patents for the transport mechanisms. Still not the decoders.
Sigh. You seem to have a talent for picking subjects for argument that you
know
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:03:37PM +, Will Newton wrote:
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 15:46, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And every set top box manufacturer pays for their MPEG-2 (or MPEG-4)
licenses.
Those are the patents for the transport mechanisms. Still not the decoders.
Sigh. You
Hi!
( sorry for not properly replying, I'm using a webmail )
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
Regards,
David Balazic
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:32:45PM +0100, xerces8 wrote:
Hi!
( sorry for not properly replying, I'm using a webmail )
Is only MPEG Layer III patent encumbered ?
How about the other MPEG stuff ?
I find it hard to believe that it is all patent-free.
Regards,
David Balazic
Its all
14 matches
Mail list logo
