On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:47:55PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:20:30 -0400 > >>> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > This is nonsense. There are enough "licenses for the linux > >>>> > environment". A lot of vendors have licensed MP3 en/decoders that > >>>> > work on the linux. The point is that there is no licensed open > >>>> > source mp3 en/decoder. > >>>> > >>>> Name 2. > >>> > >>> http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/ > >>> http://www.nero.com/enu/downloads-linux4-update.php > >> > >> Neither of which address the existing MP3 patent issues, only software > >> copyright issues. > > > > They do have a valid patent license (other example is Google). It > > Which "they"? The fluendo licensing, from reviewing their printed > license, refers to MIT software licenses. The MIT softwae licenses do > not cover patents held by 3rd parties. Did you even read linked page? Especially paragraphs with "MP3 and patents" and "The fully licensed binary GStreamer plug-in" headings? -- Tomasz Torcz Only gods can safely risk perfection, xmpp: zdzichubg@xxxxxxxxx it's a dangerous thing for a man. -- Alia -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
