Re: removing mp3 code
On Saturday 31 August 2002 02:02 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Eric Pouech wrote: > >my point is: > >- a company X has an audio player for Win32 > >- company X ports its app to Wine using the wine source, and it's mp3 > >player and makes a closed package of it > >- it'll have to pay for the license > >so I think this has to be documented somehow > > > >A+ > > Isn't it always the case with Open Source software that, when you want > to repackage a piece of code, patent licensing requirements are yours to > figure out and comply? Why is this case any different than the Unisys > LZW patent, when free (bear) implementations were free of charge? Well, yes, but it should probably be disclosed somewhere in the readme and/or the license file. You don't want people to encounter this after they've ported and released stuff, right? Wine is not legally OBLIGATED to find patent dependencies, but I think that developers should make an effort to document known/possible patent issues. It's not that hard, just put a notice in the documentation somewhere. Note: I am not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion and not legal advice. -- -- Igor
Re: removing mp3 code
Eric Pouech wrote: >my point is: >- a company X has an audio player for Win32 >- company X ports its app to Wine using the wine source, and it's mp3 >player and makes a closed package of it >- it'll have to pay for the license >so I think this has to be documented somehow > >A+ > > > Isn't it always the case with Open Source software that, when you want to repackage a piece of code, patent licensing requirements are yours to figure out and comply? Why is this case any different than the Unisys LZW patent, when free (bear) implementations were free of charge? Shachar
Re: removing mp3 code
Alexandre Julliard a écrit : > > Eric Pouech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial > > package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO. > > comments ? > > I don't think it belongs in LICENSE, but I do think the mp3 code > should be disabled by default, with a configure option to enable > it. This way people who don't know about the issue don't get in > trouble, and those who enable it are expected to know what they are > doing. ok, I'll see to 1/ add a autoconf option to enable/disable compiling a given DLL (this may also be useful for mingw configuration for example) 2/ add a note in the dlls/msacm/winemp3 directory A+
Re: removing mp3 code
Sylvain Petreolle a écrit : > > --- Eric Pouech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Uwe Bonnes a > écrit : > no, there is misunderstanding. > see http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/29/1633205&tid=17 > no fee is needed for the use of free players. > only vendors needs to pay a fee. my point is: - a company X has an audio player for Win32 - company X ports its app to Wine using the wine source, and it's mp3 player and makes a closed package of it - it'll have to pay for the license so I think this has to be documented somehow A+
Re: removing mp3 code
--- Eric Pouech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Uwe Bonnes a écrit : no, there is misunderstanding. see http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/29/1633205&tid=17 no fee is needed for the use of free players. only vendors needs to pay a fee. > > > > > "Marcus" == Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Marcus> Hi, Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not > royaltee > > Marcus> free anymore, according to the slashdot thread and the > Thomson > > Marcus> MultiMedia pages. > > > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ (german) tell > about a > > Thompson Statement that free decoders are still royalty free. The > Thompson > > statement in in english. > well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial > package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO. > comments ? > A+ > ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Re: removing mp3 code
Eric Pouech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial > package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO. > comments ? I don't think it belongs in LICENSE, but I do think the mp3 code should be disabled by default, with a configure option to enable it. This way people who don't know about the issue don't get in trouble, and those who enable it are expected to know what they are doing. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removing mp3 code
Uwe Bonnes a écrit : > > > "Marcus" == Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Marcus> Hi, Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee > Marcus> free anymore, according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson > Marcus> MultiMedia pages. > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ (german) tell about a > Thompson Statement that free decoders are still royalty free. The Thompson > statement in in english. well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO. comments ? A+
Re: removing mp3 code
> "Marcus" == Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Marcus> Hi, Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee Marcus> free anymore, according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson Marcus> MultiMedia pages. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ (german) tell about a Thompson Statement that free decoders are still royalty free. The Thompson statement in in english. Bye -- Uwe Bonnes[EMAIL PROTECTED] Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt - Tel. 06151 162516 Fax. 06151 164321 --
RE: removing mp3 code
> Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee > free anymore, > according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson MultiMedia pages. > > So we probably should remove the msacm mp3 decoder we include. :( At the very least we should make it compile option that is by default disabled. I don't think we need to go that far as to remove it. IIRC LAME an mp3 ENCODER (that was non royalty free even before) got around it by only distributing source code and so can we. BTW: Why do we include a mp3 decoder in the Wine tree? Why not just link to an external library? I can't see maintaining a mp3 decoder being in the best intrest of Wine anyway patents or not...
Re: removing mp3 code
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:03:26AM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee free anymore, > > according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson MultiMedia pages. > > > > So we probably should remove the msacm mp3 decoder we include. :( > I would wait with that, because every day you get an other information. > Have a look at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ Hmm, ok. Ignore my last mail then ;) Ciao, Marcus
Re: removing mp3 code
Hello, On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote: > Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee free anymore, > according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson MultiMedia pages. > > So we probably should remove the msacm mp3 decoder we include. :( I would wait with that, because every day you get an other information. Have a look at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ bye michael -- Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199 System Administration Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 Red Hat GmbHEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hauptstaetterstr. 58http://www.redhat.de/ D-70178 Stuttgart msg11416/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
removing mp3 code
Hi, Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee free anymore, according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson MultiMedia pages. So we probably should remove the msacm mp3 decoder we include. :( Ciao, Marcus
