Re: mp3

While I wouldn't recommend shipping software implementing patented
software without a licence, there are some things to consider: "a note" on
their website granting use may be a license, though you probably want a
paper letter confirming the authenticity and terms of the grant.  A
message that says "We haven't sued anyone yet" is really a notice that
they may sue in the future, so you are "on notice". Beware.  Patent issues
are mostly orthogonal from copyright issues. The GPL allows distribution
of software which implements patented algorithms, so long as a royalty
free license exists.

The GPL only denies distribution of software which is encumbered and not
free. Just because software is patented, does not mean it is not free,
however. The LPF considered creating a software trust of software patents
that we would then license for free.  Under the current US law, this may
seem like a frivolous endeaver, since published prior art can invalidate a
patent. If you invent something, and publish that invention, no one else
can patent it.  However, under the GATT treaty, the US agreed to harmonize
patent law to be first-to-file.  So, in the future, one will have to
patent everything that is patentable, else someone may come along later
and patent it.  This is much worse, since it will become expensive to
produce even free software.  I don't expect that this will be stopped in
the US, although the "web site closed due to patents" campaign seems to be
working in Europe.

		--Dean (hat = LPF President)

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I've decided not to violate the GPL in Aurora. This means that I will
> not be including mp3 functionality in future releases.
>
> I know some of you may not understand this, so I've borrowed from Mike
> Harris's uber-listserv posting machine for the key points:
>
> 1) MP3 technology is patented, and requires a license of some
>    sort to be granted on paper.  This means that "we haven't sued
>    anyone yet" and "we have a note on our website" are not valid
>    legal patent license grants.  A written signed contract is
>    considered valid, whether it is granted for free, or whether
>    someone has paid a fee to obtain such a license.
>
> 2) All open source MP3 software is GPL licensed currently (at
>    least to my knowledge), and that means that whether you pay for
>    the patent licensing or not, the patent still violates the
>    GPL licensed MP3 decoder software no matter how you slice it.
>
> GPLv2, section 7: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html
>
> This means that SuSE (err... Novell), Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian,
> and pretty much anyone besides Red Hat are violating the GPL, either
> willfully or ignorantly. Ignorance is no excuse, and willful
> violation effectively nullifies the power of the GPL.
>
> Now, I know this sucks for the end user. I'm sorry, I've got mp3s too.
> But it's the right thing to do.
>
> ~spot
> ---
> Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat*com> LCA, RHCE
> Red Hat Sales Engineer || Aurora SPARC Linux Project Leader
>
> "The author's mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is
> novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present
> social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to
> be published." -- Aldous Huxley
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aurora-sparc-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.auroralinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aurora-sparc-devel
> Aurora FAQ: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mas01r/aurorafaq.html
>

_______________________________________________
Aurora-sparc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.auroralinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aurora-sparc-devel
Aurora FAQ: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mas01r/aurorafaq.html