codecs and totem
Good day. I have a question: if I use totem or vlc (both provided by debian) to watch commercially distributed DVD discs, do I have to pay royalty for using codecs? If yes, to whom should I pay? Alex. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: codecs and totem
Alexander Rozhkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a question: if I use totem or vlc (both provided by debian) to watch commercially distributed DVD discs, do I have to pay royalty for using codecs? If your software comes entirely from Debian's 'main' archive, it's all free software, which means you have freedom to use it whether or not you pay anyone. If, instead, you have some software that is not part of the Debian operating system (such as software from the 'contrib' or 'non-free' archives), you'll need to check the individual license terms for each package you're talking about. This is part of the hassle of non-free software. -- \ I hope that after I die, people will say of me: 'That guy sure | `\ owed me a lot of money.' -- Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: codecs and totem
Alexander Rozhkov wrote: Good day. I have a question: if I use totem or vlc (both provided by debian) to watch commercially distributed DVD discs, do I have to pay royalty for using codecs? If yes, to whom should I pay? Hello Alexander, As far I know, Debian doesn't distribute codecs and software requiring royalties. If you see such software in official Debian, report it as a bug! For software distributed outside Debian, it is difficult to know. On most countries software patents are not valid, so codecs could be royalty free (but please check copyright licenses). On some countries also the CSS libaries are legal. Anyway I'm not a layer, and I don't know the law of you country, so take as hints for further discussion. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: codecs and totem
On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:25:12 +0200 Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Rozhkov wrote: Good day. I have a question: if I use totem or vlc (both provided by debian) to watch commercially distributed DVD discs, do I have to pay royalty for using codecs? Not unless you're using a codec you got outside debian. Debian can play non-CSS DVD's without adding anything outside main, in which case you are using entirely free software and have no royalties to pay (for the watching of the CD using Debian at any rate; if you are selling tickets to watch DVDs that an entirely different issue and not really Debian related :-) If you are using libdvdcss2 from the videolan website, or from debian-multimedia then the you still don't have to pay royalties, as it is free software but not distributed in Debian because of legal issues with doing so within the US (and I believe the EU as well). In Canada, at present it's allowed to distribute this software AFAIK but there are moves underway to make distribution illegal, but usage for non-pirating would be legal. At least that was the last I heard. Stupid stuff with CSS laws. Regards, Daniel -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org No more sea shells: Daniel's Webloghttp://cshore.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
DFSG is not suitable for things other than software
DFSG is not suitable for, and should not be applied to, things other than software. For docs there should be a separate DFDG, and even GNU don't care about free art and trademarks. Solving this problem would also help solve the GFDL non-free doc problem that caused some GFDL docs to go into non-free, as well as the Mozilla trademark and art problem that caused Firefox to be called Iceweasel in Debian. Yuhong Bao -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG is not suitable for things other than software
Yuhong Bao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DFSG is not suitable for, and should not be applied to, things other than software. Agreed. It's called the Debian Free Software Guidelines and is only intended for software. This includes anything distributed as part of Debian. For docs there should be a separate DFDG All digitally-stored, computer-accessible information is software, as distinct from the hardware that contains it. This distinction is much clearer than trying to distinguish whether a bitstream is documentation, program, image, music, prose, data, and may other classifications. Please search the archives of this mailing list for long discussions showing that many of these classifications overlap, often on the same file at the same time. “We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules apply.” —Eben Moglen URL:http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_8/moglen/ -- \ I still have my Christmas Tree. I looked at it today. Sure | `\enough, I couldn't see any forests. -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG is not suitable for things other than software
Le mercredi 21 mai 2008 à 16:12 -0700, Yuhong Bao a écrit : DFSG is not suitable for, and should not be applied to, things other than software. I see dead horses. People beat them. They don’t know they are dead. They only see what they want to see. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
