On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 14:47 -0500, lukefro...@hushmail.com wrote: > Writers of applications should be discouraged from using patented anything > that they > could reasonably have avoided, and doubly discouraged from using non-free > licenses. I agree with distros refusing to distribute software that > voluntariliy uses > patented algorithms or non-free licenses. After all, the "interoperability" > defense seen > with codecs does not apply in such cases. > > If authors of code get the idea that a restrictive license bars them from > every distro's > repos and limits them to PPA's, that is a powerful inducement to remove > patented > routines and release under a free license. > > Codec patents, however, we have no choice but to fight, as free codecs too > often can't > be played by pay operating systems whose users may be the target audience of > videos > and audio files. Also the owners of codec all remember how the patent FUD > over .gif > killed the format and nobody wants to be next in line for that.
Full acknowledgment :), with the restriction :p, that I understand the LinuxSampler's illegal GPL restriction and I like it ;D, but I don't care about all that patented codecs, I don't need them and I have not much respect to people who need them. Are codecs heroin? -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
