On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:53, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
> patent licenses. There are a few references to a statement by some of
> the patent holders (Thomson IIRC, the company representing one of the
> larg
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:58 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
> > > MPEG patents probably
Le mercredi 25 janvier 2006 à 11:53 +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> Just to clarify since you put that emphasis on decoding:
>
> There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
> patent licenses.
But as I understand it, only the encoding patents are enforceable. If we
start
* Josselin Mouette:
> We are talking about a MP3 *decoding* plugin. Like the ones we
> already have in so many packages we have stopped counting.
Just to clarify since you put that emphasis on decoding:
There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
patent licenses. There a
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
> > MPEG patents probably have a good basis.
>
> To make it clear, this is a *radical* div
Le mercredi 25 janvier 2006 à 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker a écrit :
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
>
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
>
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Are you going to sign the contract? I'm sure not putting my signature on
> anything about MP3s.
I'm afraid I can't as a poor little NM :)
> How does Debian sign a contract anyway?
I was in a simliar situation with Real, where they wanted to have signed
a contract by a DD.
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 07:59 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > To get this license one must agree to a contract that forbids
> > modification and further redistribution. It's not going to happen for
> > Debian.
>
> Ok, when its not DFSG-compliant but redistributable, why not p
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> To get this license one must agree to a contract that forbids
> modification and further redistribution. It's not going to happen for
> Debian.
Ok, when its not DFSG-compliant but redistributable, why not put it in
non-free (except personal reasons like 'I don't support non-
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 07:49 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
> > patents probably have a good basis.
> >
> > Any software which is based on Frauhoffer patents (MP3 and other similar
> > encoding sys
Russell Coker wrote:
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
> patents probably have a good basis.
>
> Any software which is based on Frauhoffer patents (MP3 and other similar
> encoding systems) should be on an external archive.
>From a technical point of v
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
>
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
> patents pro
12 matches
Mail list logo
