On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Tomasz Torcz <tomek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Reading it in even more in detail, I can only say "ick". They can't publish source for it, only binaries for countries with softwae patents. The MP3 license is quite orthogonal to the MIT licensing they speak of.. OK, you've managed to get *one* working license, but it's binary only, not a valid source license in countries with valid patents. That's a big improvement over a few years ago, I'll concede. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
