Michael, Felipe, thanks for your responses. This was very useful info. -Dragoslav Mitrinovic On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Michael Smith <msmith at xiph.org> wrote: > > Ultimately, anyone answering this with anything other than "consult > > your attorney" is... being misleading, probably. > > > > However, in addition to that, I'll explain a bit: > > > > mp3parse: This is in -ugly because it's related to mp3, which has > > known patent issues. I expect a qualified patent attorney would be > > able to tell you that it's actually fine. > > > > asfdemux: Microsoft claims patents on aspects of the ASF format. I > > have no idea if asfdemux infringes any of them; of the four plugins > > you mention this is by far the most likely to be problematic. > > > > aacparse, amrparse: like mp3parse, these relate to processing formats > > that have known patent issues. Again I'd expect that a detailed > > analysis by a patent attorney would most likely end up telling you > > that these are fine from that perspective. > > However, it's quite likely that you are going to use these with some > decoders, for which you will pay the respective license for > distribution. So, whatever patent the parsers "infringe", should be > covered by the decoders' license. > > -- > Felipe Contreras
