On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> 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"? Fluendo S.A i.e the company. >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. You are mixing copyright and patent law. If you download the code and compile it you don't have a license. The binaries shipped by fluendo are proper licensed though. > Nero licensing is another story, I'll admit. The restrictions on > MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 use, declared at > http://www.nero.com/enu/end-user-agreement.html, are fascinating: I > assume that Nero has made a vaguely successful commercial agreeement > for the licenses. But that's the first remotely valid license I've > seen for Linux use of MPEG under USA patent reestrictions. Google Chrome? Adobe Flash? Android ? .... -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
