William:
> I'm not sure if I've followed this thread 100% accurately, but I'm pretty
> sure the issue with the codecs here is in patent licensing. None of your
> cited GPL examples have patent licenses to tangle with.
If you build GPL programs such as mplayer or VLC with non-free media
codec support (e.g. MPEG-2, MP3 audio, WindowsMedia, etc), then the
patents which require paying a license fee to use are associated with
these non free media codecs.
> The sentence did
> not mean patenting open source code, but rather purchasing a patent license
> for the codecs that VLC already has and having it apply to the code, which
> would be required to do what you were asking.
I was never suggesting patenting anything in any open source code.
Even if someone purchased the licenses for the non-free media codecs, I
believe you can not distribute a GPL program which directly links in
non-free code (e.g. codec support for MPEG-2, MP3 audio, WindowsMedia,
etc.). This is in violation of the terms of the GPL which states
in clause 7:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do
not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under
this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a
consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example,
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of
the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly
through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this
License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
Program.
Since the media codecs we are discussing tend to not permit royalty
free redistribution, they cannot be linked into a GPL program.
Note the GPL restriction is only about distribution. If an individual
owns the licenses for MPEG-2, MP3 audio, WindowsMedia, etc.) the GPL
license does not restrict an end user from building a GPL program with
non-free code linked in, as long as it is not distributed.
So, if you want to distribute the program, you need to use a program
that has licensing which allows this (like the GPL license exception
that most GStreamer based programs use or a non-free license). Or you
need to distribute the program and the non-free parts separately.
Is this more clear?
Brian
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: desktop-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:desktop-discuss-
>> bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Anon Y Mous
>> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:51 PM
>> To: desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> Subject: Re: [desktop-discuss] licensed codecs available
>>
>>> It becomes more complex than that, if Sun were to take a patent license
>> on such GPL'd (VLC)
>>> code and then sell the product the next person would not be able to pass
>> along those GPL
>>> "freedoms" which would be in violation of the GPL....
>> You are reading way too much into what I'm saying. I never said Sun should
>> patent any open source projects. I just said they should add branding,
>> support and codecs to a media player and sell it to Solaris users (such as
>> myself) to make a little quick cash.
>>
>> It is 100% perfectly legal to SELL people products that are based on
>> GPL'ed code. Red Hat Linux bases their entire business model on selling
>> people binary distributions of GPL'ed code and if Red Hat can sell people
>> a branded version of Linux called "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" that is
>> really not all that much different from CentOS other than it has pictures
>> of little red hats on it, then Sun could sell people a branded version of
>> an open source media player if they wanted to. Sun has already released a
>> branded version of GNOME called "Java Desktop System", so why not a
>> branded version of VLC called "Java Media Player". Makes perfect sense to
>> me.
>>
>> Richard Stallman said himself that there is nothing wrong with selling
>> someone a binary product distribution made out of bundled up GPL'ed code.
>> The only restriction with the GPL is that Sun would have to give the
>> source code any changes they made to the GPL project back to the
> community,
>> and in my experience Sun should have no problem with doing this as they
>> are historically one of the #1 contributors of open source code (in terms
>> of sheer quantity of code shared with the community). If you look at how
>> much code Sun has shared, they are up there with other top contributors
>> such as the Regents of UC Berkeley and GNU / FSF.
>> --
>> This message posted from opensolaris.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> desktop-discuss mailing list
>> desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-discuss mailing list
> desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org
