A small gift 4 u
Urgent Announcement: Good Day, I have been instructed by my head office to alert you to the fact that your file has been reviewed and there now are a few potential options for you to consider. Please note that this issue is time sensitive and that your previous credit situation is not an issue at this time. Confirm your details on our secure form to ensure our records are accurate and we will be in touch within a few days via the method of your choice. http://www.mon-nowz.com/index.php?refid=windsor --Julie Thorne Financial Advisor - eLMR Inc. Did this reach you in error? please let us know so you won't recieve again: http://www.mon-nowz.com/r.php -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls th e GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
This is the last installment of "implied warranty" citations for a while, I promise. Forgive me for spamming; this suddenly seemed important to me once Sean pointed out that "no end user acceptance of warranty disclaimer" could be a problem. Wow. Depending on which version of UCC 2318 a given state has adopted (or what other anti-privity statute or case law may apply), all of this implied warranty business may extend to any "person whom the manufacturer or seller might reasonably have expected to use, consume, or be affected by the goods". That's a quote from the Virginia version, cited from Buettner v. R. W. Martin ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/941356p.html ). Virginia's version is limited (per that case, anyway) to a "third party beneficiary" theory, in which the user's warranty only extends as far as the purchaser's does; but some states (California included) seem to have rejected the whole clause, and who knows how far one's "duty of due care" might extend. Incidentally, I've been misrepresenting the "tort"/"contract" distinction a bit today by not adequately distinguishing negligence as a separate theory. Strict liability in tort requires a demonstration that a product was in a "defective condition unreasonably dangerous" (Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, cited from Walsh below), and that's relatively hard to prove. Breach of warranty itself is a contract theory; as such, it's unusual for damages to vastly exceed the value of the contract. Unless some idiot puts unaudited GPL code into a medical device, a nuclear plant, or an industrial robot (in which case it's probably their problem and not upstream's), neither of these theories would be likely to generate a non-negligible damages award against the author. The sort of negligence I am discussing is a cause of action in tort like any other civil wrong. But unlike most forms of tort, the "rule of privity" (dating back to the 1842 case Winterbottom v. Wright: http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Wntbtm_Wr.html ) says (or used to say) that it can only be found within a contractual relationship. This includes the implied contract between buyer and seller (hello civil law countries, we're not so different in this respect). Massachusetts is probably not alone in requiring a demonstration of breach of (implied) warranty of merchantability before negligence can be proven -- and that makes the warranty disclaimer much more important than it would otherwise be, since negligence bears a much lower standard of proof than strict liability in tort. Modern law in (almost?) every state breaches privity to extend the availability of remedies for negligence to third parties. (Survey, tilted towards negligence in legal malpractice, at http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/Comment.html . Another survey, this time in the construction industry, at http://www.seyfarth.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/cl_wint01.pdf . Professor Walsh's survey of product liability law in general, including privity issues, is at http://www93.homepage.villanova.edu/michael.walsh/pls.html .) The devil is in the details: privity is more easily breached given personal injury than mere economic loss, but there are exceptions to the exceptions, and the farther you go the more it varies by jurisdiction. The primary literature is more painful to track down in this area than in copyright law, since we are talking about causes of action under state law that don't often lend grounds for an appeal to a Federal circuit court. For instance, Aas v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2000) [24 Cal. 4th 627] would be really interesting to read, especially since it catalyzed a legislative compromise for the California construction industry analogous to automobile lemon laws (according to http://www.constructiondefects.com/pr_newlegis.asp ). Here is a quote from Aas (cited from http://www.defectlaw.com/Top60Cases.htm ): "The distinction that the law has drawn between tort recovery for physical injuries and warranty recovery for economic loss is not arbitrary and does not rest on the 'luck' of one plaintiff in having an accident causing physical injury. The distinction rests, rather, on an understanding of the nature of the responsibility a manufacturer must undertake in distributing his products." Another quote from Aas seems to imply that negligence recovery in California is limited to actual damages to person or property. I'd also really like to track down the grant of partial summary judgment (in district court, presumably on diversity grounds) described at http://www.burnhambrown.com/publications/article.cfm?pubid=99 ; maybe I'll go down to the law library and shell out for the PACER search. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA) P. S. Random case encountered when hunting for the Sears opinion: the entertainment value of Ninth Circuit opinions seems to extend also to the local district court. See http://www.the10b-5daily.com/archives/000293.html . Now I have to de
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > If I were defending, say, an Ogg/Vorbis implementation [...] I > would argue that a wavelet transform is sufficiently different [...] Wavelet transforms are not the only thing the format supports, but it may be usable to defend a particular encoder. > If I were defending an MP3 decoder, I would > say instead that the decoder doesn't realize the invention because it > doesn't know or care whether the encoder used the quantization scheme > that the disclosure teaches. That seems like it might be tenable in general, though. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PySNMP license
Morten Werner Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY > SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. > > I consider this as a warning to the user, and not a usage limitation > from the author. What do you think, and can the package go to main? Assuming they are using SHOULD like in the RFCs and there's no indication otherwise (like acting to stop uses), I agree. -- MJR/slef May be my opinion only - see http://people.debian.org/~mjr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Correct license
This license is in accordance with debian social contract? VOSTROM Public License will be Open Source http://oppleman.com/license/index.opp -- .''`.Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Alex de Oliveira Silva (enerv) `. `'`Home Page: www.debian-ce.org `- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Correct license
* Alex de Oliveira Silva: > This license is in accordance with debian social contract? > > VOSTROM Public License will be Open Source > http://oppleman.com/license/index.opp This clause seems to rule out in-house versions: | 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or | publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using | proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under | conditions of this license; While this is probably DFSG-free, it can be very obnoxious, depending on what the software does. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Correct license
> | 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or > | publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using > | proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under > | conditions of this license; > > While this is probably DFSG-free, it can be very obnoxious, depending > on what the software does. IIRC restrictions on public performance are *not* DFSG-free. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Correct license
This is package. Package: layer-four traceroute Debian: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/lft -- .''`.Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Alex de Oliveira Silva (enerv) `. `'`Home Page: www.debian-ce.org `- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Correct license
* Humberto Massa Guimarães: >> | 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or >> | publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using >> | proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under >> | conditions of this license; >> >> While this is probably DFSG-free, it can be very obnoxious, depending >> on what the software does. > > IIRC restrictions on public performance are *not* DFSG-free. The DFSG do not even require that the license permits public performance. Maybe it's against the spirit of the DFSG, but I'm not so sure. This clause resembles the extended copyleft provisions of the Affero General Public License. Has debian-legal reached consensus on that license?
Re: Mandatory click wraps trivially non-free
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but nothing worth quibbling over. Obviously the GPL prohibits a pop-up which > cannot be removed by a later distributor. My only contention was that as a > distributor, if I wanted extra assurance that those I was distributing to saw > the GPL, that I could have it pop up in my distributions. I agree. Also, I could distribute GPLed software via non-anonymous CvS (in other words, only to certain people whose identities are choosen by some mechanism which is typically out of the scope of this discussion). -- Raul
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
> On 7/13/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's difficult to create JPEG image rendering software without using > > technologies described by MP3 patents. On 7/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So do tell us where MP3 patents fit -- what patents, which claims, and > what part of JPEG compression? I very carefully made a distinction between "technology described by the patents" and "patented technology" in the message you're responding to. One example of technology where this distinction should be clear is the use of time -> frequency domain mapping. -- Raul
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I very carefully made a distinction between "technology described by > the patents" and "patented technology" in the message you're responding > to. > > One example of technology where this distinction should be clear is > the use of time -> frequency domain mapping. Mr. James was obviously referring to the scope of the inventions ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents in the Fraunhofer (and possibly Sisvel) suites. Cheers, - Michael
Great positionn
How to s purgative ave on your MEDlCATIONS over 70%. Phar readily mShop - Successfull and Pr morbid oven Way to save your wellread money. panelling V A circumlocutional G A garget L l pundit U tinstone l R calaber A C embolden l I coming S VA unhoped L secondbest M and many other. Best PRlCE teaching S. Wor legacy ldwide SHlPPlNG. Easy Order Fo inoffensive rm. Total confidentiaIit median y. 250,0 fictional 00 satisfied customers. Order today and s unbalanced ave!
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
Michael K. Edwards wrote: > The Federal > Circuit, en banc, characterized one defendant's reliance on a similar > statistic (offered by their counsel and apparently relied on in good > faith to the extent that that means anything) as "flagrant disregard > of presumptively valid patents without analysis" -- and I can find no > better words for it. I am not inclined to give any weight to the Federal Circuit statement you quoted given that it seems to be from before the rejection of the "No legal opinion == wilful infringement" assumption made by that Circuit. As a matter of fact, a ridiculously large number of the patents granted by the US Patent Office these days are obviously invalid. >But it's still no basis >for a claim that you have, or anyone else has, exercised "due care" >with regard to any particular patent, let alone a suite of dozens that >has withstood the kind of scrutiny that Fraunhofer's has. Perhaps "due care" would be sufficiently exercised by the following: Looking at the "mp3 patent" titles, none of them claim to cover decoding. Anyway, Fraunhofer's patents are all invalid in Europe under the European Patent Convention, which prohibits patents on mathematics. Perhaps it's time to revive non-US for distribution of mp3 decoders. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
I have copied the Executive Contact and the Legal Counsel for Xiph.org on this message. Please drop them on follow-ups that are not relevant to Ogg/Vorbis. Mr. Rosedale and Mr. Moffitt: the topic of MP3 patents arose on debian-legal (thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00081.html ) and we could all use some competent advice. On 15 Jul 2005 09:05:10 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > If I were defending, say, an Ogg/Vorbis implementation [...] I > > would argue that a wavelet transform is sufficiently different [...] > > Wavelet transforms are not the only thing the format supports, but it > may be usable to defend a particular encoder. Do you happen to know whether the Xiph.org team has retained competent counsel to evaluate the possible impact of the Fraunhofer and Sisvel patent suites on Ogg/Vorbis? (They claim that Ogg/Vorbis is "patent-and-royalty-free" at http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/ , which is pretty strong language.) If not, maybe Fluendo would fund the legal fees -- they seem willing to pay money to random lawyers for (IMHO, IANAL) dubious opinions and to post the result publicly (Google: gstreamer Moglen). Personally, I would be little more inclined to rely on the continued availability of royalty-free open-source Ogg/Vorbis encoders than their MP3 equivalents without some indication that someone competent is on record as to the basis for a reasonable belief that they do not infringe the Fraunhofer suite. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/15/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > The Federal > > Circuit, en banc, characterized one defendant's reliance on a similar > > statistic (offered by their counsel and apparently relied on in good > > faith to the extent that that means anything) as "flagrant disregard > > of presumptively valid patents without analysis" -- and I can find no > > better words for it. > > I am not inclined to give any weight to the Federal Circuit statement you > quoted given that it seems to be from before the rejection of the "No legal > opinion == wilful infringement" assumption made by that Circuit. As a matter > of fact, a ridiculously large number of the patents granted by the US Patent > Office these days are obviously invalid. Er, that's a quote from the very opinion that breached stare decisis in order to dispose of the "adverse inference" rule. If you had a later revision of the law (statutory or judicial) in mind, now would be a good time to cite it. > >But it's still no basis > >for a claim that you have, or anyone else has, exercised "due care" > >with regard to any particular patent, let alone a suite of dozens that > >has withstood the kind of scrutiny that Fraunhofer's has. > Perhaps "due care" would be sufficiently exercised by the following: Looking > at the "mp3 patent" titles, none of them claim to cover decoding. > > Anyway, Fraunhofer's patents are all invalid in Europe under the European > Patent Convention, which prohibits patents on mathematics. Perhaps it's time > to revive non-US for distribution of mp3 decoders. Do you have opinion of competent counsel in support of that assertion? If the patent that I picked to look at closely is any indication, I doubt that the European Patent Convention invalidates it -- but I am not qualified to judge, and I suspect that neither are you. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
Oh, and by the way: get the letter quoted at http://ballsome.org/index.php/news/100 on corporate letterhead, and Debian and most of its users are probably (IMHO, IANAL, TINLA) golden WRT both MP3 encoding and decoding, anywhere that "reliance to one's detriment" and "substantial non-infringing use" have any meaning. Are we all so blinded by anti-patent ideology that we don't bother to do trivial homework like writing to the patent holder for clarification? Cheers, - Michael
Re: Correct license
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > This clause resembles the extended copyleft provisions of the Affero > General Public License. Has debian-legal reached consensus on that > license? Only that it sucks, I think, not whether it's for main or not. There were one or two people willing to defend the general principle in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/threads.html#00373 but not the specific wording of that time. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unidentified subject!
尊敬的财务负责人： 您好！ 因我公司享有国家优惠政策，纳税率底于一般纳税公司。为了贵公司的利益得到提高，更能方便、 快捷的开到税务发票，现长期对外代开发票，贵公司如有下列情况需要可一一为您效劳： 一、 公司做帐、进、出口差额的； 二、 客户压低货价、利润微薄的； 三、 采购时需要正式票据报销的； 四、 其它涉税项目的。 我们以金额大小收费： 一、 商品销售发票（1%--2%） 二、 增殖税专用发票（4%--7%） 三、 运输、广告、其它服务（1%--2%） 四、 海关缴款书（3%--5%） 如有不祥欢迎电来邮咨询！ 祝：生意兴隆达三江！ 财源广进永不停！ 注：请保留以备后用！ 深圳市祥兴富实业有限公司 联系电话：（0）13682474266 电话传真： 0755-81151172 邮 箱： [EMAIL PROTECTED] 联 系 人： 陈哲 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Correct license
On 7/15/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This clause resembles the extended copyleft provisions of the Affero > General Public License. Has debian-legal reached consensus on that > license? For my own part, two words: Idiotic. Non-free. (Gratuitously non-GPL-compatible, discriminates against embedded developers, effectively ties the program to today's network plumbing and demands that users open themselves wide to DDoS attacks.) Cheers, - Michael (IANADD, IANAL, TINLA)
中联公司
财务经理： 你好！ 深圳市中联税务代理有限公司(全国各大中城市均有分公司) 对外代开发票.代开范围:(商品销售、广告、 “电脑版”运输发票、其它服务、租赁、建筑安装、餐饮定额发票等)税率2%-1%左右.贵公司在做帐或进销存方面如 需用到的话，我司可提供全方面的服务。可根据所做数量额度的大小来衡量优惠的点数。 欢迎来电来邮!郑重承诺!所用票据均可上网查询验证后付款！ 联 系 人：朱 展 光 业务手机：13632949865 E- MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] 地址:深 圳 市 罗 湖 区 文 锦 路 221 号 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
I wrote: > Personally, I would be little more inclined to rely on the continued > availability of royalty-free open-source Ogg/Vorbis encoders than > their MP3 equivalents without some indication that someone competent > is on record as to the basis for a reasonable belief that they do not > infringe the Fraunhofer suite. In case it seemed otherwise: I am very much pro-Ogg/Vorbis. I am not particularly pro-software-patents but I am not under the illusion that the MP3 patents have less traction in the world's major legal systems than numerous others which have been litigated successfully by their holders. I have recently become aware of the details of the "duty of due care" standard apparently last modified by the Federal Circuit court in Knorr-Bremse v. Dana (2004), and while I am not aware of any personal risk to myself, it would be nice to know what there is to know about the state of the state, so to speak. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
广州逸新贸易有限公司
您好： 广州逸新贸易有限公司 您好！贵公司经理/财务： 首先，对于我的冒昧来函向您致歉，但愿这函对贵公司有所帮助。 我司享有国家优惠政策；常年主要以生产和销售为一体的定额纳税企业，现我公司有余额的发票向外代开。 如贵司有下列情况： 1、公司做进帐，出项有差额。 2、客户压底货价，利润微薄。 3、采购时需要正式票据报销。 我司为贵司提供如下票据： （1）国税（商品销售发票），地税（运输票，广告票，服务票，建筑票等） （2）海关代征进口增值税专用缴款书 财务部： 1、本公司承诺所开票据均可在网上查询和验证认可；如有意者详细合作敬请来电洽商。 2、如果本信息给你带来不便请删除，我们向您表示歉意。 电 话：13929500125 联 系 人：林先生 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
> I have copied the Executive Contact and the Legal Counsel for Xiph.org > on this message. Please drop them on follow-ups that are not relevant > to Ogg/Vorbis. Mr. Rosedale and Mr. Moffitt: the topic of MP3 patents > arose on debian-legal (thread at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00081.html ) and we > could all use some competent advice. Just a quick note on this thread. Time seems to have erased the memory of Thompson going after everyone. 8hz-enc, bladeenc, lame, and many other projects have shut down (from cease and desist letters) or refuse to distribute binaries because the MP3 suite of patents _is_ actively enforced. Try going out and finding unlicensed implementations outside the Free Software and Open Source worlds. That out of the way, I will address the issues raised below. > > > If I were defending, say, an Ogg/Vorbis implementation [...] I > > > would argue that a wavelet transform is sufficiently different [...] > > > > Wavelet transforms are not the only thing the format supports, but it > > may be usable to defend a particular encoder. I don't believe there are wavelet transforms in Ogg Vorbis. These are planned for some future incompatible update. > Do you happen to know whether the Xiph.org team has retained competent > counsel to evaluate the possible impact of the Fraunhofer and Sisvel > patent suites on Ogg/Vorbis? (They claim that Ogg/Vorbis is > "patent-and-royalty-free" at http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/ , which > is pretty strong language.) If not, maybe Fluendo would fund the > legal fees -- they seem willing to pay money to random lawyers for > (IMHO, IANAL) dubious opinions and to post the result publicly > (Google: gstreamer Moglen). Before we released Ogg Vorbis beta 1, we did indeed hire a patent specializing attorney to go over the MP3 suite of patents. He only thought it necessary to issue a formal opinion on a single one of these patents. We were advised by him, and other attorney's, that the specifics of this opinion could not be divulged publically. Since that time (around 2000,2001 I believe), I believe several companies have also had lawyers look over this issue. RedHat ships Ogg Vorbis, and they are obviously aware of these patent problems due to their removal of MP3 related software, so I assume they made this decision based on sound legal advice. I don't believe anyone is going to publically share their findings any more than we have for the same reasons our lawyer original gave. New patents come up all the time. No one can afford to keep track of them all, or to have attorney's issue legal opinions on anything related. We have done informal, but educated, analysis on many patents that others have brought to our attention, and never found anything worth troubling a lawyer over. Also, we originally intended the patent-free part of our software, so we based many algorithms on old, widely published results, and avoided many methods that would lead to patent trouble. Many large corporations ship Ogg Vorbis with their products, including Microsoft, RealNetworks, EA Games, and many more. There are plenty of billion dollar companies to go after for infringement, should infringement actually be occuring due to Ogg Vorbis. The fact the none of these companies has been, to anyone's knowledge, threatened with litigation over related patents speaks volumes. We've been around for 5 years, and we've taken this issue seriously the entire time. > Personally, I would be little more inclined to rely on the continued > availability of royalty-free open-source Ogg/Vorbis encoders than > their MP3 equivalents without some indication that someone competent > is on record as to the basis for a reasonable belief that they do not > infringe the Fraunhofer suite. What I have said above we thought was common knowledge. There are probably very few Free Software projects that have dealt with this issue as seriously as Xiph.org. One last note: I am still on the board of the Xiph.org Foundation, but Monty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is currently the Executive Director. Tom Rosedale is our current legal counsel, but was not the attorney who did the patent review, nor was he actively involved with us at the time the patent review was done. Feel free to continue copying me on the discussion. As a fellow debian developer, I'm quite interested in this issue from both sides. jack. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libopenspc -- library for playing SPC files
(Follow-ups to debian-legal, please.)
FWIW, I would not touch SNEeSe or any fragment derived from it with a
ten-foot pole unless they can tell you where sneese.dat came from and
what's in it. My guess is that it is an infringing copy of the
contents of an SNES64 ROM and that the history of its inclusion on
SNEeSe taints the legality of the whole code base ("fruits of the
crime" and all that). IANAL, TINLA.
Cheers,
- Michael
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
Jack Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip, chop, trim] > > Before we released Ogg Vorbis beta 1, we did indeed hire a patent > specializing attorney to go over the MP3 suite of patents. He only > thought it necessary to issue a formal opinion on a single one of these > patents. We were advised by him, and other attorney's, that the > specifics of this opinion could not be divulged publically. Since that > time (around 2000,2001 I believe), I believe several companies have also > had lawyers look over this issue. Thanks for this very informative statement. Two questions spring to mind, one MP3-technical and one patent-technical: 1. which patent was the one worth issuing an opinion on? 2. why was the opinion not to be divulged publically? Clearly, the specific patent is a matter of interest for those developing in this area so they can effectively get advice. The other question is "what kind of useful advice cannot be propagated, and why?"... cheers, Rich. -- rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED] technical director 251 Liverpool Road | need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487 www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
Thanks very much to Mr. Moffitt for weighing in! On 7/15/05, Jack Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a quick note on this thread. Time seems to have erased the memory > of Thompson going after everyone. 8hz-enc, bladeenc, lame, and many > other projects have shut down (from cease and desist letters) or refuse > to distribute binaries because the MP3 suite of patents _is_ actively > enforced. Try going out and finding unlicensed implementations outside > the Free Software and Open Source worlds. That out of the way, I will > address the issues raised below. That's entirely consistent with my (much less informed) understanding of the history. It would be very interesting to know whether the statement at http://ballsome.org/index.php/news/100 reflects their present policy, and if so whether it would offer some degree of equitable-estoppel-based safe harbor for distributors who can demonstrate substantial non-infringing uses as a defense against contributory infringement. There's no shame, and potentially much advantage, in providing cross-conversion tools between a genuinely free format and the current market leader. > I don't believe there are wavelet transforms in Ogg Vorbis. These are > planned for some future incompatible update. Can you point me to a brief but technical summary of some of the Ogg Vorbis codecs? I would be curious to compare them against the MP3 techniques, about which I know at least a little bit. > Before we released Ogg Vorbis beta 1, we did indeed hire a patent > specializing attorney to go over the MP3 suite of patents. He only > thought it necessary to issue a formal opinion on a single one of these > patents. We were advised by him, and other attorney's, that the > specifics of this opinion could not be divulged publically. Since that > time (around 2000,2001 I believe), I believe several companies have also > had lawyers look over this issue. RedHat ships Ogg Vorbis, and they are > obviously aware of these patent problems due to their removal of MP3 > related software, so I assume they made this decision based on sound > legal advice. I don't believe anyone is going to publically share their > findings any more than we have for the same reasons our lawyer original > gave. That's understandable. Any chance you could at least identify which patent warranted a formal opinion? > New patents come up all the time. No one can afford to keep track of > them all, or to have attorney's issue legal opinions on anything > related. We have done informal, but educated, analysis on many patents > that others have brought to our attention, and never found anything > worth troubling a lawyer over. Also, we originally intended the > patent-free part of our software, so we based many algorithms on old, > widely published results, and avoided many methods that would lead to > patent trouble. Can you enlarge at all on your approach to "duty of due care"? I have only recently run across Knorr-Bremse and am ignorant of how this works in practice when the patents are flying thick and fast. > Many large corporations ship Ogg Vorbis with their products, including > Microsoft, RealNetworks, EA Games, and many more. There are plenty of > billion dollar companies to go after for infringement, should > infringement actually be occuring due to Ogg Vorbis. The fact the none > of these companies has been, to anyone's knowledge, threatened with > litigation over related patents speaks volumes. We've been around for 5 > years, and we've taken this issue seriously the entire time. Absolutely it speaks volumes on the risk management front. But Microsoft, for instance, pays out rather frequently to settle IP suits, sometimes for reasons only peripherally related to their validity; and I don't think watching what the big boys do counts as due care. > What I have said above we thought was common knowledge. There are > probably very few Free Software projects that have dealt with this issue > as seriously as Xiph.org. That's why I put you to the trouble of commenting; I thought debian-legal needed a little injection of educated opinion from someone with a first-hand clue. Common knowledge seems to fade as rapidly as common sense. > One last note: I am still on the board of the Xiph.org Foundation, but > Monty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is currently the Executive Director. Tom > Rosedale is our current legal counsel, but was not the attorney who did > the patent review, nor was he actively involved with us at the time the > patent review was done. I hope I haven't put you to any trouble or expense by copying Mr. Rosedale; some people prefer to have their legal counsel copied on such issues when they list contact information on a page like http://www.xiph.org/contact/ . I've added Mr. Montgomery on this follow-up; please drop Mr. Rosedale if it's not necessary for him to be involved. > Feel free to continue copying me on the discussion. As a fellow debian > developer, I'm quite int
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. why was the opinion not to be divulged publically? Whether or not the attorney requests that the opinion not be made public, it tends to be wise to preserve attorney-client privilege at the heart of a matter that may be litigated someday -- especially now that (per Knorr-Bremse) no adverse inference may be drawn from a refusal to disclose the contents of such an opinion during discovery. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
101网校，名师家教
网址：www.chinaedu.com 地址：淮海北路55号游泳馆三楼 电话：05173922101 3290260 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
There is no cost to Xiph for copying me on these. Jack and Monty are well aware of the legal environment in which they are operating. Please do not feel that it is necessary to remove me from this. Tom Thomas B. Rosedale Browne Rosedale & Lanouette LLP 31 St. James Avenue, Suite 850 Boston, MA 02116 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Main: (617) 399-6931 Direct: (617) 399-6935 Fax:(617) 399-6930 This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. ** IRS Circular 230 Notice: To comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we advise you that any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, to avoid any U.S. federal tax penalties or to promote, market or recommend to another party any tax related matters addressed herein. -Original Message- From: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:39 PM To: Jack Moffitt; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MJ Ray; debian-legal@lists.debian.org; Tom Rosedale; Daniel James; Free Ekanayaka Subject: Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS Thanks very much to Mr. Moffitt for weighing in! On 7/15/05, Jack Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a quick note on this thread. Time seems to have erased the memory > of Thompson going after everyone. 8hz-enc, bladeenc, lame, and many > other projects have shut down (from cease and desist letters) or refuse > to distribute binaries because the MP3 suite of patents _is_ actively > enforced. Try going out and finding unlicensed implementations outside > the Free Software and Open Source worlds. That out of the way, I will > address the issues raised below. That's entirely consistent with my (much less informed) understanding of the history. It would be very interesting to know whether the statement at http://ballsome.org/index.php/news/100 reflects their present policy, and if so whether it would offer some degree of equitable-estoppel-based safe harbor for distributors who can demonstrate substantial non-infringing uses as a defense against contributory infringement. There's no shame, and potentially much advantage, in providing cross-conversion tools between a genuinely free format and the current market leader. > I don't believe there are wavelet transforms in Ogg Vorbis. These are > planned for some future incompatible update. Can you point me to a brief but technical summary of some of the Ogg Vorbis codecs? I would be curious to compare them against the MP3 techniques, about which I know at least a little bit. > Before we released Ogg Vorbis beta 1, we did indeed hire a patent > specializing attorney to go over the MP3 suite of patents. He only > thought it necessary to issue a formal opinion on a single one of these > patents. We were advised by him, and other attorney's, that the > specifics of this opinion could not be divulged publically. Since that > time (around 2000,2001 I believe), I believe several companies have also > had lawyers look over this issue. RedHat ships Ogg Vorbis, and they are > obviously aware of these patent problems due to their removal of MP3 > related software, so I assume they made this decision based on sound > legal advice. I don't believe anyone is going to publically share their > findings any more than we have for the same reasons our lawyer original > gave. That's understandable. Any chance you could at least identify which patent warranted a formal opinion? > New patents come up all the time. No one can afford to keep track of > them all, or to have attorney's issue legal opinions on anything > related. We have done informal, but educated, analysis on many patents > that others have brought to our attention, and never found anything > worth troubling a lawyer over. Also, we originally intended the > patent-free part of our software, so we based many algorithms on old, > widely published results, and avoided many methods that would lead to > patent trouble. Can you enlarge at all on your approach to "duty of due care"? I have only recently run across Knorr-Bremse and am ignorant of how this works in practice when the patents are flying thick and fast. > Many large corporations ship Ogg Vorbis with their products, including > Microsoft, RealNetworks, EA Games, and many more. There are plenty of > billion dollar companies to go after for infringement, should > infringement actually be occuring due to Ogg Vorbis. The fact the none > of these companies has been, to anyone's knowledge, threatened with > litigation over related patents speaks volumes. We've been around for 5 > years, and we've taken this issue seriously the entire time. Absolutely it speaks volumes on the risk management front.
Unidentified subject!
你好 我是中关村二手网 http://www.pc26.com 希望大家到我们的网站去看看，免费注册会员，然后再免费把你的产品信息发布上来，让我们广大的会员能看到你的信息，方便和你联系！ 另外我们的网站免费注册会员的期限就要到了，如果你还没有免费注册，请尽快登陆注册。机会不容错过！千万的商机在向你招手！ 我们的网站有很多的求购信息！希望你能联系以下，帮你找到商机！ 网络店铺，帮助您生意更加兴隆。 如果这封邮件打扰到您！请您给予谅解，删除即可。 有什么问题和我们联系我的电话010-82853069-802 斯琴 E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Q Q:31530937 祝商祺！ 中关村二手网 推广部 北京金桥利康科技有限责任公司 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
您好!
中国国际旅游用品及酒店设备(泰国)展览会 地 点：泰国曼谷市诗丽吉会展中心 时 间：2005年8月25-28日 主办单位：中国贸促会商业行业分会 协办单位：泰国旅游业者公会ASSOCIATION OF THAI TRAVEL AGENTS 泰国酒店行业公会 THAI HOTEL ASSOCIATION 承办单位：中国贸促会商业行业分会 泰国TCB. EXHIBITION CO.，LTD 参展内容：酒店设备用品：厨房设备、餐饮设备、五金不锈钢制品、暖通制冷设备、洗衣房设备、卫浴设备、烘烤设备、制冰机、消毒柜、擦鞋机、桌面用品、客房用品、床上用品、易耗品、酒店制服、酒店配套电器、客房灯饰、舞台音响灯光、地毯、玻璃器皿、金银器、陶瓷瓷器、包装用品、工艺礼品等；安防系统、酒店家具、酒店照明、清洁设备用品、茶、饮设备、视听设备、体育用品及器材旅游用品：旅行箱、休闲包、商用箱及电脑箱、手提包、旅行伞，旅行饰品、旅游运动服装、旅游鞋、户外旅游设备、旅游纪念品、广告礼品、 赠品、小家电、玩具、假发、皮具、工艺陶瓷、水晶暨玻璃器皿、钟表眼镜、日历暨相集、休闲康体设备 优惠政策 由于国家给予专项补贴，我会已为参展企业提供事前补贴的优惠政策 1、 展位费： ① 标准展位：1元/个（每个展位9 m2） ② 空 地：1000元/m2 (27 m2以上承租) 2、 人员费： ① 5000元/人（境外7天，包括：签证、国际往返机票、国外伙食费、住宿费） ② 5500元/人 (境外10天，包括：签证、国际往返机票、国外伙食费、住宿费) 3、 展品运费：以运输公司报价为准（展品也可自运）。 展览会招商处 电 话：020-34052085-34052490 传 真：020-34052023 联系人：唐净芸13725492506 EMAIL：[EMAIL PROTECTED] 回执表: 我公司： 准备参展□ 有兴趣参观□ 索取详细资料□ 单位名称： 联系人： _ 电 话： _ 传 真：__ （注：展位数量有限参展请速报名申请）
加工
你好！贵服装公司你好！ 贵司是否有烫珠；订珠业务，我加工厂熟手女工多名 从事烫珠；订珠操作。贵司只要来图形即可。其它的交给 我们，我们就可以生产出你所需要的产品。 顺颂商祺！ 联系人：刘先生。 电 话：13129323177 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
101网校，名师家教
网址：www.chinaedu.com 地址：淮海北路55号游泳馆三楼 电话：05173922101 3290260 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Penis enlargement breakthrough!
Achieve stronger and harder erections http://www.xunepa.com/ss/ There are several good protections against temptations, but the surest is cowardice. Once you learn how to die, you learn how to live. Sacred cows make the best hamburgers. No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. Knowledge is power. (Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/15/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you point me to a brief but technical summary of some of the Ogg > Vorbis codecs? I would be curious to compare them against the MP3 > techniques, about which I know at least a little bit. I am _not_ trying to create trouble here; anything I can figure out in a couple hours of Googling is probably already on your (and your potential opponents') radar. If anything, this illustrates how difficult it can be to sustain work in this space without documenting the things you have done that you think are original in the form of patent applications, so you have something to bring to the table when it's time to negotiate an industry standard and form a patent pool. So I started by reading the Vorbis I spec, and it looks to me (on a very quick reading, IANAL, TINLA, little green men squeezed this through a pinhole in my tinfoil hat) like your decoder at least is clean WRT Fraunhofer -- at the risk of pushing the possibility of patent infringement onto the data stream itself. It's a bit like selling silicon which doesn't become patent-infringing until the firmware is loaded -- which is a perfectly good business strategy, followed by many silicon and board-level vendors in A/V space. Specifically, putting the codebooks in the header is clever, and I'm guessing that Floor 1 gets you out of the trouble that Floor 0 might have had any patent that specifies the Bark scale explicitly. There are always Lucent's patents to worry about (#5790759, #5285498, EP1160770, ... -- I can't believe they let this kind of crap through the system), and you might want to scan the rest of http://gauss.ffii.org/Search/All/IPC/G10L19/02 (maybe even all of bloody G10L19), but I'm probably teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. (If I were designing the codebook format, I might go for stratified trees with room for a heap index so that I could do stabbing queries and bulk insertion efficiently -- but that's really for streaming applications, and matters more when you have hardware on the back end that can only handle a minimal interlock during partial codebook updates. Agile codebook switching might also help compete with G.729E and modern equivalents. Xiph.org is welcome to reduce that idea to practice and patent it, doing whatever they like with the economic rights, as long as I am properly credited as co-inventor. :-) Note that K. Brandenburg, co-author of the 1992 paper you cite as the source of the MDCT, is almost certainly the same Karlheinz Brandenburg who filed #5040217 (assigned to AT&T Bell Labs, now presumably held by Lucent as well). A forward citation search for that patent number might be in order; you might particularly be interested in #6,704,705 (assigned to Nortel). By the way, where did you get the numbers in floor1_inverse_dB_table? If that's an important part of the psycho-acoustic magic, its provenance needs documenting, or it could get ugly in a court of fact when an "expert witness" lies with numbers. The general public can't tell what the significance of the difference between two exponential-ish curves may be, and you don't have the say-so of a patent examiner (for what that's worth) that your methodology does or doesn't differ in some way from the prior art as of date X. That's about all I can glean from the Vorbis I spec without long, tedious grinding through the patent databases, which I'm not qualified to do anyway. Now, is there any documentation about how the encoder works? How do you go about tracking whose chocolate gets into your peanut butter as people refine the encoding techniques? Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA, I know jack about patents except what I learned when filing one -- totally unrelated to audio -- with the help of a patent agent (now attorney) whom I respect a great deal.)
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
I wrote: > By the way, where did you get the numbers in floor1_inverse_dB_table? > If that's an important part of the psycho-acoustic magic, its > provenance needs documenting, or it could get ugly in a court of fact > when an "expert witness" lies with numbers. The general public can't > tell what the significance of the difference between two > exponential-ish curves may be, and you don't have the say-so of a > patent examiner (for what that's worth) that your methodology does or > doesn't differ in some way from the prior art as of date X. Nevermind. It's a pure exponential: http://trac.xiph.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/323 . Cheers, - Michael
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:20:14PM -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote: > > I have copied the Executive Contact and the Legal Counsel for Xiph.org > > on this message. Please drop them on follow-ups that are not relevant > > to Ogg/Vorbis. Mr. Rosedale and Mr. Moffitt: the topic of MP3 patents > > arose on debian-legal (thread at > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00081.html ) and we > > could all use some competent advice. > Just a quick note on this thread. Time seems to have erased the memory > of Thompson going after everyone. 8hz-enc, Encoder, > bladeenc, encoder... > lame, encoder. > and many other projects have shut down (from cease and desist letters) Which do you have in mind? We're certainly all well aware of the patents that are being enforced against mp3 encoders, and Debian does not ship any mp3 encoders. This is also certainly a factor in considering which media formats should be given *preference* within Debian. However, > or refuse to distribute binaries because the MP3 suite of patents _is_ > actively enforced. Try going out and finding unlicensed implementations > outside the Free Software and Open Source worlds. That out of the way, I > will address the issues raised below. AFAIK there is no public evidence that Red Hat's (which is who I assume you're principally referring to) decision not to ship mp3-playing software is grounded in concerns about actively enforced patents. I'm actually not aware of *any* C&D's over mp3 decoding/playing that have actually stuck; and while I appreciate the principled stances various groups have taken in publically rejecting mp3, I don't think it furthers Debian's goals for us to do the same in the absence of some concrete support for the claim that mp3 *players* are patent-encumbered. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
机票信息
捷程票务七月份 国 内 机 票 特 价（不含建设费） 目的地 原价优惠价 目的地 原价优惠价 目的地 原价优惠价 北京 1130570 海口 1660 500深圳 1400 630 大连 1060640 广州 1280 770沈阳 1300 650 厦门 960 380 乌鲁木齐 2800 1120 桂林 1300 650 青岛 740 370 昆明 1900 760重庆 1490 450 济南 760 300 哈尔滨 1760 880成都 1610 480 三亚 1890760 西安 1260 500郑州 800 400 国内联程机票特价（不含建设费） 上海=北京=包头1050上海=北京=银川1310 上海=北京=乌市1600 上海=北京=海拉尔1450 上海=北京=青岛1170 上海=北京=宜昌1840 上海=北京=烟台1290上海=海口=北海1060 上海=海口=珠海1330 上海=海口=南宁1250上海=海口=桂林1420 上海=海口=湛江1000 上海=海口=深圳=750 上海=西安=西宁1350 上海=西安=榆林1410 上海=西安=延安1030上海=西安=汉中1200 上海=西安=兰州1320 上海=西安=昆明1520上海=厦门=深圳800市上海=厦门=广州700 上海=西安=成都1220上海=西安=重庆1190 上海=西安=张家界1220 上海=西安=贵阳1430上海=西安=敦煌2170 上海=西安=银川1320 上海=西安=乌市950 上海=北京=佳木斯1250 上海=成都=万州1240 上海=北京=锦州1300上海=北京=呼和浩特1350 上海=成都=丽江1550 上海=成都=西宁1520上海=成都=攀枝花1300上海=北京=哈尔滨 单程960 上海=厦门=广州700 上海=厦门=深圳800 上海=西安=乌鲁木齐950 上海=晋江=广州700 上海=乌市=伊宁1580 上海=乌市=阿克苏1610 上海=乌市=库尔乐1650 上海=乌市=喀什1720 上海=武汉=成都690 上海=武汉=重庆610 上海=武汉=昆明870 上海=长沙=成都650 上海=长沙=昆明750 上海=长沙=张家界=长沙=上海1000 上海=长沙=北海590 上海=成都=九寨沟=成都=上海1980元 上海=北京=沈阳单��950往返1860 2005年7月各城市团队折扣(10人以上) 西安4折 宜昌5折西宁4折北京4.5折 南宁4折长沙4.5折 成都2折 三亚3.5折深圳4折重庆2.5折 海口3折 贵阳4折昆明3.5折 北海4折 郑州4.5折天津4折太原4折长春6折 青岛3.5折 烟台4折 大连5折 福州4折 厦门4折济南4折景洪5折 南昌5折丽江5.5折 兰州6折 桂林5折 温州5折呼和浩特5折张家界4.5折绵阳550元 乌鲁木齐4.5折 广州5折 深圳3折哈尔去程4.5折 回程4折 国 际 机 票 特 价(不含税收) 目的地 单程 往返 目的地 单程 往返 目的地单程 往返 香港 1060 1680(CZ) 釜山 1080 2280 澳门 1260 2280 东京 1820 2480(NW) 大阪(FM) 1260 2380 吉隆坡2020 2060(GV2) 悉尼(CA) 3380 4460 巴黎(CA) 2960 4080 雅加达1680 2880 迪拜(QR) 3860 5160 汉城(FM) 1180 2280 马尼拉1480 2860 莫斯科 2080 2080(MU) 名古屋 1580 2380 伦敦 3180 4880新加坡 2060 2360(GV2) 纽约 3260(CA) 4660(NW) 普吉岛1580 2480 曼谷 1580 2160(MU547)洛杉矶 2880(MU) 3960(NH) 法兰克福 3980 5280 温哥华 2660 3980 赫尔幸基 4460(CA) 6080(AY) 福冈 1360 1880 旧金山 2780（CA）3980（NH）开普敦 4860 6280 约翰内斯堡4660 5580 上海--澳门--台北 单去1680 往返3060 上海--香港--台北单去1980 往返3560 上海--冲绳--台北 单去1960 往返2960 上海--济州--高雄/台北单去1760 往返3280 上海--墨尔本--澳洲部分城市 往??6080 上海--巴黎--欧洲部分城市 往返6080 上海--罗马/米兰 单去4160 往返6480 上海--香港4天内往返 1280 第一次订票可免费申请普通会员卡，随票赠送10元现金抵用卷500元，会员本人购买40万保险优惠10元一份。 以上价格为最底舱位报价，欲订从速！实际价格以当日出票为准，请见谅！本中心同时经营国内、国际众多航线及酒店预订，欢迎来电查询!详情请来电咨询，热线电话：021－51082795；62609070；62609828.此信息如果给您带来不便，请及时联系我们，以便给您取消！ 国内专线: 021-62609828 51082795 联系人： 曹小姐 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 国际专线: 021-62609070 28496649 联系人： 储小姐 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 如果您想成为终身制金卡会员,请拨打 会员咨询电话: 021-51082795 联系人： 张小姐 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libopenspc -- library for playing SPC files
On Friday 15 July 2005 08:36 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> (Follow-ups to debian-legal, please.)
>
> FWIW, I would not touch SNEeSe or any fragment derived from it with a
> ten-foot pole unless they can tell you where sneese.dat came from and
> what's in it. My guess is that it is an infringing copy of the
> contents of an SNES64 ROM and that the history of its inclusion on
> SNEeSe taints the legality of the whole code base ("fruits of the
> crime" and all that). IANAL, TINLA.
>
> Cheers,
> - Michael
libopenspc only includes the SPC portion of the emulator... I'm certainly not
shipping any mysterious .dat files -- it's also a separate project from
SNEeSe, though the same developer works on both it and SNEeSe's sound core
(homepage is http://home.comcast.net/~brad.martin1/) . It is released under
the Clarified Artistic (the SNEeSe bits) and the LGPL (the actual library
interface). I guess I'll leave this up to the wizards of -legal -- I'm not
any good at this sort of thing...
Philipp Kern is my mentor for this package and xmms-openspc.
-legal, please CC me, I'm not subscribed.
--
Ryan Schultz
-> floating point exception: divide by cucumber
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
Presumably you are also aware of patents 5,341,457 and 5,627,938, which Lucent has been seeking to enforce against Dolby AC-3. As your encoder appears to use Ehmer's tone masking techniques, which are also cited in the AC-3 standard definition, that litigation may be of interest -- particularly as Dolby obtained in April a summary judgment of non-infringement and there is a real possibility that Lucent's patents will be invalidated altogether if the remainder of the case goes to trial as scheduled in September. Although your psy.c is a bit opaque and I have given these Lucent patents only the briefest of glances, I would say that the '457 patent disclosure resembles the Vorbis encoder more closely than anything else I have seen in the literature. No suggestion that you infringe is implied; I'm just trying to get a handle on how psy.c works and the patent database is the best hook into the primary literature that I am currently holding. I haven't identified which, if any, patents cover Dolby AC-3 qua AC-3 (that's a Dolby trademark, as is Dolby Digital 5.1; the generic name is "ATSC Standard A/52"). There seems to be a relevant patent pool in DVD space (in which Dolby participates, to the extent of receiving a small royalty on AC-3 encoded DVDs, but may not have contributed any patents AFAICT). There is an interesting list in Appendix A of http://contracts.onecle.com/intervideo/dolby.lic.1999.03.04.shtml but I haven't ground through it and probably won't. The "cease and desist" letter at http://www4.netbsd.org/Letters/20010803-dolby.html looks to me to be "actual notice" of nothing whatsoever. Given that Dolby approaches "violators" even more prejudicially than Thomson does (or used to?), somehow I suspect that if Dolby had a leg to stand on other than their trademarks then there would be some record of their citing a specific patent against A52dec and/or FFmpeg (which remain on SourceForge). IANAL, TINLA, YMMV. I have, however, tracked down the principal DTS patent (#5,956,674) claimed against VideoLan's libdca; but it has such a thicket of claims that I cannot begin to say what might or might not infringe it other than an implementation of DTS itself. I doubt they would bother you, though; their format is wildly different (mixed VQ and ADPCM, specialized subframes to massage transients away, "signal-to-mask ratios"), and it has the general air of a tweak of a hack to a kludge. So, by reputation, does AC-3; so unless Dolby holds something pretty general (which would surprise me), it also seems unlikely to threaten Vorbis unless you know something I don't. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
Out of this WoRLD $aving$ on all Office XP titles
Title: 3 Opt-in Email Special Offer unsubscribe meSEARCH Software TOP 10 NEW TITLES ON SALE NOW! 1 Office Pro 2003 2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0 3 Windows XP Pro 4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro 5 Flash MX 2004 6 Corel Draw 12 7 Norton Antivirus 2005 8 Windows 2003 Server 9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt 10 Adobe Illustrator 11 See more by this manufacturer Microsoft Symantec Adobe Customers also bought these other items...Microsoft Office Professional Edition *2003* MicrosoftChoose: View Other Titles List Price:$499.00 Price:$69.99 You Save:$429.01 (86%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Coupon Code: LlrFXjAdM Sales Rank: #1 System requirements | Other Versions Date Coupon Expires: August 31st, 2005 Average Customer Review: Based on 133316 reviews. Write a review. Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 AdobeChoose: View Other Titles List Price:$599.00 Price:$69.99 You Save:$529.01 (90%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Coupon Code: 3VnCwI9w Sales Rank: #2 System requirements | Other Versions Date Coupon Expires: August 31st, 2005 Average Customer Review: Based on 124954 reviews. Write a review. Microsoft Windows XP Professional or Longhorn Edition MicrosoftChoose: View Other Titles List Price:$279.00 Price:$49.99 You Save:$229.01 (85%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Coupon Code: nT7Tpt Sales Rank: #3 System requirements | Other Versions Date Coupon Expires: August 31st, 2005 Average Customer Review: Based on 12194 reviews. Write a review. Adobe Acrobat Professional V 7.0 AdobeChoose: View Other Titles List Price:$499.00 Price:$69.99 You Save:$429.01 (85%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Coupon Code: bvxr1J Sales Rank: #4 System requirements | Other Versions Date Coupon Expires: August 31st, 2005 Average Customer Review: Based on 18396 reviews. Write a review.
