[bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
Opinions? I thought that it had been decided that mp3 decoders were ok for main... I've maintained an mp3 player since I became a maintainer two years ago, first with emusic, now with freeamp... Please Cc me on replies, I am not on -legal. - Forwarded message from Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Subject: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free Reply-To: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Debian-PR-Message: report 65794 X-Debian-PR-Package: freeamp X-Debian-PR-Keywords: From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Reportbug-Version: 0.57 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:27:23 +0200 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: freeamp Version: 2.0.7-1 Severity: important freeamp is a MP3 decoder. Decoding of MP3s is patented. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html says about license fees for MP3 decoders: --- mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users 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. --- [you have to pay license fees in all other cases] This seems to conflict with the DFSG. freeamp must go to non-free - End forwarded message - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:51:58PM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote: Opinions? I thought that it had been decided that mp3 decoders were ok for main... I've maintained an mp3 player since I became a maintainer two years ago, first with emusic, now with freeamp... Please Cc me on replies, I am not on -legal. In worst case it would go to non-us (no software patents in Europe). Anyway, it seems that none of their ``patents'' is about decoding. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]
Okay guys, how about a few suggestions? -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 lux if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the computer masochists Well, I've decided that regardless of what anyone else does, I'm going to modify my own application's license (note that my app is not part of the "official" KDE, and in fact is not even released yet, but it's built on top of the KDE libraries. You can find out about it at http://anima.sourceforge.net) What I'd like to do is write a modification to the GPL which expresses the following intent: I want to allow linking with _any_ code which is distributed under a license that conforms to the open source definition. However, I want my own program files to be covered under the GPL. In other words, it's sort of half-way between the GPL and the LGPL - whereas the LGPL allows linking to anything, this would allow linking to open-source only. So in other words, as long as the "work as a whole" is open source, it doesn't matter if there are parts which have more restrictive licenses restrictive than the parts I wrote. Is this doable without weakening the license too much, or making it inconsistent? (BTW, is there an official "Free Software Definition", similar to the "Open Source Definition"?) -- Talin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "I am life's flame. Respect my name. www.sylvantech.com/~talinMy fire is red, my heart is gold. www.hackertourist.com/talin Thy dreams can be...believe in me, If you will let my wings unfold..." -- Heather Alexander
Re: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?]
According to Joseph Carter: Okay guys, how about a few suggestions? Well, you could use the term "OSI-Certified Open Source" as an unambiguous description of open source licenses. (Unless you don't like OSI's certifications, of course.) -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (reiserfs) Re: License arguements again (debian specific)
Just a few words from the most autoritative source - The GPL itself: 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally. Isn't it very similar to Hans' write me for different license if you need this? Martin Martin MaD Douda WEB:http://www.volny.cz/mad3/EMAIL:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SMS:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (up to 160 characters) PHONE:+420603752779 PGP:ID=0x6FE43023 Fingerprint:E495 11DA EF6E 0DD6 965A 54F3 888E CC9E 6FE4 3023 UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 05:16:11PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: And I would still recommend a less ambiguous phrasing. I agree. I hope there is a chance to get it changed. Hans seems to be willing to accept a better wording. So if someone can come up with a better wording speak up now. From the reiserfs mailinglist: Hans Reiser wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: If this is the case may I suggest changing the text a bit then? If you release it under the GPL and add a statement like the one below things will be a lot more obvious. If you want to use reiserfs but can't due to its GPL license please contact Hans Reiser to discuss pricing for differently licensed source. Your phrasing does reflect the intent, except that some of my phrasing makes unambiguous that which the GPL makes very ambiguous and lawsuit inviting. That is, the whole proprietary kernel module issue, and what is a derived work. What is a derived work is very difficult to define independently of the software, which I think is why the GPL does not attempt to do so. I think it isappropriate for an author of GPL software to define what is considered a derivedwork in a manner that other persons can reasonably rely on when making decisionsas to how to properly and legally integrate it with non-GPL software. In the Linux context I have to use Linus's interpretation in order to be a good team member, elsewhere I can use Stallman's more constraining interpretation. I am quite happy if folks suggest better phrasing than what I use. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | pgpVazxomYtrs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:20:21PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: From the reiserfs mailinglist: Hans Reiser wrote: I am quite happy if folks suggest better phrasing than what I use. To solve incompatability with the GPL: Replace: +Since that license (particularly 2.b) is necessarily vague in certain +areas due to its generality, the following interpretations shall govern. with: +If you feel that the GPL is too restrictive or vague, you may choose to +be governed by the following interpretations. To solve the binary kernel module issue.. hmm... For the moment, I'm happy with the interpretation that binary kernel modules are treated in the same fashion as other programs: They use an API exported by the kernel. That API isn't particularly stable, but that doesn't seem to me to mean that binary kernel modules should be restricted more heavily than other binaries. There may be legal flaws with this point of view, but at the moment I don't see them. Exporting an API is what the kernel does. If binary kernel modules are restricted by the GPL so are all other programs. Perhaps Linux should be licensed under the LGPL, to solve this issue? -- Raul
Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)
I wrote: Exporting an API is what the kernel does. If binary kernel modules are restricted by the GPL so are all other programs. Perhaps Linux should be licensed under the LGPL, to solve this issue? By the way, this was a rhetorical suggestion. -- Raul
[bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
Opinions? I thought that it had been decided that mp3 decoders were ok for main... I've maintained an mp3 player since I became a maintainer two years ago, first with emusic, now with freeamp... Please Cc me on replies, I am not on -legal. - Forwarded message from Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Subject: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free Reply-To: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Debian-PR-Message: report 65794 X-Debian-PR-Package: freeamp X-Debian-PR-Keywords: From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Reportbug-Version: 0.57 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:27:23 +0200 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: freeamp Version: 2.0.7-1 Severity: important freeamp is a MP3 decoder. Decoding of MP3s is patented. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html says about license fees for MP3 decoders: --- mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users 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. --- [you have to pay license fees in all other cases] This seems to conflict with the DFSG. freeamp must go to non-free - End forwarded message -
Re: [bunk@fs.tum.de: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:51:58PM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote: Opinions? I thought that it had been decided that mp3 decoders were ok for main... I've maintained an mp3 player since I became a maintainer two years ago, first with emusic, now with freeamp... Please Cc me on replies, I am not on -legal. The patent holders are only gently pursuing this patent claim, likely because it is invalid. It's a bluff. If you pay the license, you're a sucker. If you refuse, they eventually back down to avoid an unfavorable precedent. This is no different from Unisys's claim that you need to pay for a license to decode .gif files when you really don't. mp3 encoders that employ the methods described in the patents are restricted in various countries where such patents are permitted. There's probably other ways to encode mp3's, but nobody has written any such code yet. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whether there is a patent on MP3 decoding [was Re: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
severity 65794 normal severity 65796 normal severity 65797 normal thanks On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:27:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: freeamp is a MP3 decoder. Decoding of MP3s is patented. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html says about license fees for MP3 decoders: mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users 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. [you have to pay license fees in all other cases] This seems to conflict with the DFSG. freeamp must go to non-free Actually, patent issues don't concern DFSG, the copyright/licensing issues do. But yes, the packages would move to non-free... I am not completely convinced that this is a real threat. There was no threat for a lawsuit ever by the Fraunhofer or Thomson people against a free MP3 decoder that we shipped (although yes, this can be a problem for those CD vendors that make 1 copies). The mp3licensing.com or thomson-multimedia.com sites have no clear reference or text of a patent that covers decoding. Rumour has it that decoding of MP3s is a simple Fourier transform, and there's a prior art for that process which dates back to the start of the century, so the patent wouldn't be valid, if it existed. Until further investigation (i.e. until someone quotes a patent that our free software packages infringe), let's downgrade the severity of these bug reports below release-critical. The debian-legal people should be able to tell us more about stuff on http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents.html. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: whether there is a patent on MP3 decoding [was Re: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Josip Rodin wrote: severity 65794 normal severity 65796 normal severity 65797 normal thanks On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:27:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: freeamp is a MP3 decoder. Decoding of MP3s is patented. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html says about license fees for MP3 decoders: mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users 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. [you have to pay license fees in all other cases] This seems to conflict with the DFSG. freeamp must go to non-free Actually, patent issues don't concern DFSG, the copyright/licensing issues The first point of the DFSG is: Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. If you read the text above: distributed free-of-charge via the Internet doesn't cover the distribution on a CD. do. But yes, the packages would move to non-free... I am not completely convinced that this is a real threat. There was no threat for a lawsuit ever by the Fraunhofer or Thomson people against a free MP3 decoder that we shipped (although yes, this can be a problem for those CD vendors that make 1 copies). The mp3licensing.com or Until now there was no threat for a lawsuit, but if they want they can try it with EVERYONE who sells a CD - and if they want they can pick a very small one (I think of that there is currently someone in Germany who has a trademark on webspace and his lawyer sends letters that you must say you don't use that word again - and that you have to pay at about 1000,- Dollar for the lawyer who sent this letter. They always pick people / small companies that don't have the money for a long lawsuit.). thomson-multimedia.com sites have no clear reference or text of a patent that covers decoding. Rumour has it that decoding of MP3s is a simple Fourier transform, and there's a prior art for that process which dates back to the start of the century, so the patent wouldn't be valid, if it existed. Until further investigation (i.e. until someone quotes a patent that our free software packages infringe), let's downgrade the severity of these bug reports below release-critical. ... I think these bugs are RC: Do you really want the risk of a lawsuit for everyone who sells a CD with main of Debian? cu, Adrian -- A No uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a Yes merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi
Re: whether there is a patent on MP3 decoding [was Re: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 11:06:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users 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. [you have to pay license fees in all other cases] This seems to conflict with the DFSG. freeamp must go to non-free Actually, patent issues don't concern DFSG, the copyright/licensing issues The first point of the DFSG is: Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. If you read the text above: distributed free-of-charge via the Internet doesn't cover the distribution on a CD. Yes, but it isn't the license of a Debian component, it's an external patent. So technically it's not the software that isn't Free Software, it's some external condition that would make it move outside of main. (yeah, non-free is a misnomer) do. But yes, the packages would move to non-free... I am not completely convinced that this is a real threat. There was no threat for a lawsuit ever by the Fraunhofer or Thomson people against a free MP3 decoder that we shipped (although yes, this can be a problem for those CD vendors that make 1 copies). The mp3licensing.com or Until now there was no threat for a lawsuit, but if they want they can try it with EVERYONE who sells a CD - and if they want they can pick a very small one (I think of that there is currently someone in Germany who has a trademark on webspace and his lawyer sends letters that you must say you don't use that word again - and that you have to pay at about 1000,- Dollar for the lawyer who sent this letter. They always pick people / small companies that don't have the money for a long lawsuit.). That's pure lunacy. Fortunately, Debian doesn't have to deal with it. thomson-multimedia.com sites have no clear reference or text of a patent that covers decoding. Rumour has it that decoding of MP3s is a simple Fourier transform, and there's a prior art for that process which dates back to the start of the century, so the patent wouldn't be valid, if it existed. Until further investigation (i.e. until someone quotes a patent that our free software packages infringe), let's downgrade the severity of these bug reports below release-critical. ... I think these bugs are RC: Do you really want the risk of a lawsuit for everyone who sells a CD with main of Debian? As I said above, we have yet to see a solid proof that they have something against all this software. With KDE we had the two licenses to analyze, here we just have lots of hot air. I'm CC:ing this to Richard, the release manager, his opinion on whether something is release-critical is final. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: whether there is a patent on MP3 decoding [was Re: Bug#65794: freeamp must go to non-free]
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 11:06:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: Until now there was no threat for a lawsuit, but if they want they can try it with EVERYONE who sells a CD - and if they want they can pick a very small one (I think of that there is currently someone in Germany who has a trademark on webspace and his lawyer sends letters that you must say you don't use that word again - and that you have to pay at about 1000,- Dollar for the lawyer who sent this letter. They always pick people / small companies that don't have the money for a long lawsuit.). thomson-multimedia.com sites have no clear reference or text of a patent that covers decoding. Rumour has it that decoding of MP3s is a simple Fourier transform, and there's a prior art for that process which dates back to the start of the century, so the patent wouldn't be valid, if it existed. Until further investigation (i.e. until someone quotes a patent that our free software packages infringe), let's downgrade the severity of these bug reports below release-critical. ... I think these bugs are RC: Do you really want the risk of a lawsuit for everyone who sells a CD with main of Debian? I have a patent on dynamic linking and will sue anyone who ships a dynamically linked library and doesn't pay me $1000 dollars. Based on what they've been saying, this is just a bully tactic. It's not acceptable for people to just cave in, to give up. It rewards the bully and encourages them to do more. OTOH, why would they sue us? Mandrake ships both LAME and BLADE, as well as some of the mp3 decoders Debian does. They've given a license to distribute the mp3 decoders for free, so they probably aren't concerned about the decoders very much. Frankly, I see little pragmatic reason to cave in, and a strong moral reason not to. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu A dynamic character with an ability to survive certain death and a questionable death scene leaving no corpse? Face it, we'll never see her again. - Sluggy Freelance
