Re: Legality of Linux Mint codecs (was linux mint)
Barry, I am guessing you mean patents rather patterns. That said, I think you will find that those patents have not been enforced. They may have some standing, but I don't think any non-licence holder of media codecs and has been subject to legal proceedings in Australia (at least publically). (And put up your hand if you don't use MP3 on Ubuntu (without using Fluendo). And if you do, you are, IMHO and remember IANAL, morally clear, in that you probably already own multiple devices all that have full-licensed patents on them - hence have already paid the patent owners multiple times over). Regards, Martin martinvisse...@gmail.com On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Barry Williams bazzaw...@gmail.com wrote: Linux mint are able to offer there distro with pattern infringing codecs by hosting there site in europe (I believe) where those patterns are not enforced. In Australia I believe those patterns are enforced so using mint is possibly illegal as is installing the non fluendo codecs in ubuntu. For your infomation only what you do with it is up to you Barry -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: Legality of Linux Mint codecs (was linux mint)
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 12:02 +1000, Martin Visser wrote: Barry, I am guessing you mean patents rather patterns. That said, I think you will find that those patents have not been enforced. They may have some standing, but I don't think any non-licence holder of media codecs and has been subject to legal proceedings in Australia (at least publically). Patents don't get weaker with lack of enforcement: there is no reason to assume its safe just because there haven't been lawsuites. (And put up your hand if you don't use MP3 on Ubuntu (without using Fluendo). And if you do, you are, IMHO and remember IANAL, morally clear, in that you probably already own multiple devices all that have full-licensed patents on them - hence have already paid the patent owners multiple times over). Its up to patent owners how they license: they may license per-device rather than per-user (or however they choose). If they want a license per device, you're infringing if you claim that you've paid but then use another device. This sucks, but its the current state of law. Australia permits business process and software patents. If you want to lobby for changes to the patent system by civil disobedience, thats your choice: but understand that the risk is real. In particular, someone distributing patent infringing software is a more visible target than an anonymous end user that downloads it. -Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Legality of Linux Mint codecs (was linux mint)
Linux mint are able to offer there distro with pattern infringing codecs by hosting there site in europe (I believe) where those patterns are not enforced. In Australia I believe those patterns are enforced so using mint is possibly illegal as is installing the non fluendo codecs in ubuntu. For your infomation only what you do with it is up to you Barry -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
