It seems to me that the way to get MP3 players in Linux is for the MP3 company or a distributor to sell the MP3 module to a user that has Linux and allow them to install it separate from the OS, or for the Linux company to pay the royalties and include it in a boxed edition that is not allowed to be re-distributed. Buck -----Original Message----- From: shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew Saltzman Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 9:39 AM To: shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: RedHat, Fedora, and the Future of Life as We Know it On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Joe wrote: > Kevin Waterson wrote: > > >This one time, at band camp, "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>What part of "IT IS NOT LEGAL FOR THEM TO INCLUDE MP3 SUPPORT" do > >>you not understand? Or is it that you actively support companies who > >>wilfully break the law? Please, clear me up here. > >> > >> > > > > > >What sort of crap is this? > >Of course it is legal, you simply pay a fee the appropriate company > >like any OS you have pay dollars for. > > > So you suggest they pay a fee for each copy of redhat/fedora linux > installed? How would they track that if anyone can download isos and > install the os on as many machines as they like? Clearly, it would > only make sense to pay such a fee if rhl were no longer free. The other side of this issue is the provision in the GPL regarding patents and other obligations applied to GPL and LGPL software, to wit: For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library. So it is not legal *under the GPL* to distribute the MP3 libraries for GPL'ed software such as xmms. Some repositories may choose to ignore this provision; they are technically in violation of the GPL. But it is incumbent on Red Hat, whose business is founded on GPL'ed software, to respect those provisions of the license. If you believe in the power of Open Source licenses, then you need to respect that decision. Now, other sources (or even Red Hat, if they chose) could legally sell MP3 decoders for Linux (under a license that respects the patent conditions) and pay the royalties. Such packages could not be redistributed and (for that reason) could not be considered Open Source (or "free-as-in-speech"). -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
