Thomson: MP3 Licensing Same As It Ever Was 312
Thomson Multimedia is downplaying the
recently reported change
in the
licensing
of patented MP3 technology as nothing more than a trivial, semantic change.
In a NewsForge report today,
Robin ("roblimo") Miller quotes a spokesman who denies that any change in the licensing terms has taken place, "that Thomson laid down its licensing terms long ago, and that if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were." The patent encumbrance of MP3 codecs has worried Free software enthusiasts for a long time; if the recent wording change represents no change in policy, it seems that they really have been right all along.
(NewsForge,
like Slashdot, is part of the
sinister OSDN keiretsu.)
Foolishness (Score:0, Informative)
No looking back (Score:2, Informative)
Digital music is dead. Long live digital music!
Re:Foolishness (Score:2, Informative)
Re:stop blaming Thomson (Score:5, Informative)
In true /. style, you have not read the article:
A few words can make a BIG difference! (Score:5, Informative)
BSD Legal Distribution? (Score:3, Informative)
The Open Source community should check on this possibility. If this is found to be legal, then it may be fairly simple for a single non-profit site to have downloads of MP3 capable software taylored for each popular Linux distribution. Sure, that isn't perfect, but better than nothing.
Troll! (Score:4, Informative)
Licensing scheme was changed, and it's documented. (Score:5, Informative)
The recorded page from August of 2000 stated that:
"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."
The page from the same date for third-party encoders [archive.org] is pretty much the same as they said, though- so LAME, blade, etc., seem to have been afoul of this for a while. Which is pretty awful, since they're great software.
The record at the Archive [archive.org] was brought up in a previous article, so I'll give credit to that individual whose name I don't have on hand. And Flarelock, for the "1984" post above, that's a nice touch.
Re:So why pull the software? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the link [redhat.com]
Re:MP3 technology not compatible with GPL (Score:2, Informative)
If John Q. Hacker makes a GPL'd MP3 encoder / decoder
RedHat could refrain from distributing the software, but still make an easily accesable link available so a user could get it from the author's site.
Re:Author is violating the GPL (Score:2, Informative)
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program 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 Program.
That's true, but as long as you are not charging for the product, that's alright. If some group who downloads your software starts charging for it, they are in violation of the patent, not you. You still comply with the GPL clause requiring the software be redistributable without paying patent royalties as long as you personally aren't charging for it. I think you're in the clear, but IANAL, YMMV, and other disclaimers apply.