[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not the point here. Besides, you got a spare $50,000 for
Mandrake?? As it is they are AFAIK laying off developers and
(perhaps) rushing releases a bit just to stay afloat. I am not
True we are short of money, false we are rushing the release for
that reason
On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 02:44, Ben Reser wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:29:42AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
Yes. 1), $50k is a non-trivial amount of money, but that's not the
important point.
Great when can we expect your check?
Hehe :). I *meant* the next point was far more
Philippe Coulonges [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hum, don't forget that Freeware != Freeofcharge != Freesoftware,
I think that's the point. There was only exceptions for free of
charge decoders.
The download edition is free of charge. That's an important point. Even when
it is
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seriously. Mandrake can't afford to do this. If you want proof look at
rpmdrake. Rather than hire someone to maintain the existing C code.
They rewrote it in Perl since nobody knows C well enough to maintain
rpmdrake. I think that should be very
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:41, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
Why doesn't Mandrake, RedHat, and others simply pay $50,000 on behalf of
the XMMS team. Then they will have an unlimited license for decoding
.mp3's. Mandrake/Redhat/others simply distribute XMMS
Or am I missing something?
You're short
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:04:26PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
That's a joke? We are a large number of developers knowing very
well the C language, of course (the stage1 is in C and I am (and
always have been) the only programmer for it).
That was the rationale that has been presented
Adam Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As we were discussing the mp3 patent issue in the Mandrake IRC channels,
a thought occurred to me. I remembered that it's legal to distribute the
source code of something that breaks US software patent legislation
(because it's considered the
David Walser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a patent can't just cover decoding mp3 files no matter
how you do it. They can license their particular
decoder code however they want, but any code that's
not derived from it most likely doesn't infringe any
patent and can't require royalties no
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 03:42, Todd Lyons wrote:
The code is not what is patentend. It's the algorithm.
I thought the stance was they were enforcing their patent for all
encoders and only for commercial decoders (and leaving free decoders
alone). Has that changed since last week or was
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 05:36, David Walser wrote:
--- Todd Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code is not what is patentend. It's the
algorithm.
Of course. So you'd have to use the patented
algorithm to have problems.
You can't decode MP3 without using the patented algorithm. MP3 is
Hmm...
just another idea:
mp3.com owns a license of the mp3 algorithm. Why not automagically
download xmms and mpg123/321 using their website?
Jochen Schönfelder
--
-
Jochen Schönfelder Spannskamp 26 22527 Hamburg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 11:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
You can't decode MP3 without using the patented algorithm. MP3 is
essentially audio data compressed with a certain algorithm. The *only*
ehm:
2*2=4 (Patented * algorithm)
2+2=4
S, is XMMS going to play MP3's or not in 9.0???
Cheers,
Jason
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
David Walser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a patent can't just cover decoding mp3 files no matter
how you do it. They can license their particular
decoder code however they want, but any code
Has anyone contacted the developer of the algorithm in question?? If
not, this is all shooting in the dark. I wanna know if Mandrake has
contacted this Frauenwhoever to ask if Free decoding software is
indeed excluded from possible litigation??. If it is, then this thread
is a waste of time.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
S, is XMMS going to play MP3's or not in 9.0???
dunno yet. we're studying the issue with lawyers, and contacting
thomson rh to get more info on the subject.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone contacted the developer of the algorithm in question?? If
not, this is all shooting in the dark. I wanna know if Mandrake has
contacted this Frauenwhoever to ask if Free decoding software is
indeed excluded from possible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has anyone contacted the developer of the algorithm in question??
If not, this is all shooting in the dark. I wanna know if
Mandrake has contacted this Frauenwhoever to ask if Free
decoding software is indeed excluded from possible
litigation??.
I just emailed them directly myself - I want to KNOW. I'll advise
if/when they respond.
Regards,
Jason
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone contacted the developer of the algorithm in question?? If
not, this is all shooting in the dark. I
Am Mittwoch, 28. August 2002, 13:26:17 Uhr MET, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Heh - I just noticed it's out very own Gotz Washck who posted this to
slashdot in the first place :).
Please don't screw up my name, it's Götz. But you can transliterate it
to Goetz if you don't have a compose key :-)
--- Adam Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
US law is braindead enough to make that not
illegal?
Unfortunately our system of gov't is fatally flawed,
and there are lots of braindead laws now.
1- we provide sourcecode
2- we provide a button in rpmdrake to compile it
and install it
3-
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 07:38, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Haavard wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that this has come up now, mp3licensing.com has never
listed any exemption for freeware decoders.
That is incorrect.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010331223305/www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 13:38, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has anyone contacted the developer of the algorithm in question??
If not, this is all shooting in the dark. I wanna know if
Mandrake has contacted this Frauenwhoever to ask if Free
decoding software is
Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 07:38, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Haavard wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that this has come up now, mp3licensing.com has never
listed any exemption for freeware decoders.
That is incorrect.
Adam Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Compare this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20001212023000/mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html
to this:
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html
The first link is the version of that page that existed up till August
20, 2001; the
Le Mercredi 28 Août 2002 17:51, Gary Lawrence Murphy a écrit :
What has changed? Why do we not just continue to use the BladeEnc?
For that matter, why don't we all just move to Sweden!
BladeEnc is in plf.
--
Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer
une pomme en véritable ordinateur.
D == David Walser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
D The frauenhofer page I've seen doesn't say, all it does is give
D different royalty rates for decoders depending on whether or
D not they're based on frauenhoffer code.
The only mention of this I can find on DayPop is a 1999 article on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le Mercredi 28 Août 2002 16:57, Guillaume Cottenceau a écrit :
Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 07:38, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Haavard wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that this has come up now, mp3licensing.com has
The question here is DECODERS not ENCODERS, though why blade is not IN
the distro I do not know
Cheers,
Jason
Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
D == David Walser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
D The frauenhofer page I've seen doesn't say, all it does is give
D different royalty rates
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 09:57, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Hum, don't forget that Freeware != Freeofcharge != Freesoftware,
I think that's the point. There was only exceptions for free of
charge decoders.
True, therefore the downloadable CDs were ok, but not the PowerPacks.
--
Steve Fox
Danny Tholen wrote on Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:47:47PM +0200 :
You can't decode MP3 without using the patented algorithm. MP3 is
essentially audio data compressed with a certain algorithm. The *only*
ehm:
2*2=4 (Patented * algorithm)
2+2=4 (Free + algorithm!)
( a bit
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 07:26 am, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone contacted the developer of the algorithm in question?? If
not, this is all shooting in the dark. I wanna know if Mandrake has
contacted this Frauenwhoever to ask if
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:24:03PM -0500, Igor Izyumin wrote:
Why isn't the list simply configured to re-write the header? Couldn't it just
include both the stuff in the original reply-to and the cooker email?
So that people who need to get offlist replies can set a Reply-To header
and then
--- Igor Izyumin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And Jason, PLEASE DON'T SET A REPLY-TO HEADER WHEN
POSTING TO THIS LIST!
Why isn't the list simply configured to re-write the
header? Couldn't it just
include both the stuff in the original reply-to and
the cooker email?
Probably, but think
Igor Izyumin wrote on Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:24:03PM -0500 :
And Jason, PLEASE DON'T SET A REPLY-TO HEADER WHEN POSTING TO THIS LIST!
Why isn't the list simply configured to re-write the header? Couldn't
it just include both the stuff in the original reply-to and the cooker
email?
This
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 22:24, Igor Izyumin wrote:
This mailing list server is not very good.
/me hands Igor the Understatement Of The Decade award :)
--
adamw
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:50:26PM -0700, Todd Lyons wrote:
Those of us using mutt don't even notice the improperly configured
mailers :-/
I use mutt and I notice. I just never remember to type L instead of r.
--
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ben.reser.org
If your love has no hope of
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
S, is XMMS going to play MP3's or not in 9.0???
dunno yet. we're studying the issue with lawyers, and contacting
thomson rh to get more info on the subject.
Why doesn't Mandrake, RedHat, and others simply pay $50,000 on
SORRY to cause such a stir, I didn't realise I had a reply to header
set, so thanks for bringing it to my attention, it was my mistake. It
has now been removed. Apologies to the list for the pain in the ass.
Cheers,
Jason Greenwood
Ben Reser wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:24:03PM -0500,
That's not the point here. Besides, you got a spare $50,000 for
Mandrake?? As it is they are AFAIK laying off developers and (perhaps)
rushing releases a bit just to stay afloat. I am not ripping ML, just
trying to be honest. I do NOT want to see ML go under, THAT would be a
sad day. So if it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not the point here. Besides, you got a spare $50,000 for
Mandrake?? As it is they are AFAIK laying off developers and (perhaps)
rushing releases a bit just to stay afloat. I am not ripping ML, just
trying to be honest. I do NOT want to see ML go under, THAT
On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 00:41, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
Why doesn't Mandrake, RedHat, and others simply pay $50,000 on behalf of
the XMMS team. Then they will have an unlimited license for decoding
.mp3's. Mandrake/Redhat/others simply distribute XMMS
Or am I missing something?
Yes. 1),
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:29:42AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
Yes. 1), $50k is a non-trivial amount of money, but that's not the
important point.
Great when can we expect your check?
--
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ben.reser.org
If your love has no hope of being welcomed do not
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 06:00:19PM -0700, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
If the cost was split between most linux distro's, as well as community
support... It souldn't be that much. Even if it was only split 5 ways
Mandrake would need only $10k. And that's chump change next to the
salary of one
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 08:44 pm, Ben Reser wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 06:00:19PM -0700, Bryan Whitehead wrote:
If the cost was split between most linux distro's, as well as community
support... It souldn't be that much. Even if it was only split 5 ways
Mandrake would need only
As we were discussing the mp3 patent issue in the Mandrake IRC channels,
a thought occurred to me. I remembered that it's legal to distribute the
source code of something that breaks US software patent legislation
(because it's considered the blueprint of something that infringes
patent, not the
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 07:43 pm, Adam Williamson wrote:
As we were discussing the mp3 patent issue in the Mandrake IRC channels,
a thought occurred to me. I remembered that it's legal to distribute the
source code of something that breaks US software patent legislation
(because it's
David Walser wrote on Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 07:26:11PM -0700 :
Warning: I am not a lawyer.
same
idem
I believe you're right, but the farther you go
towards making stuff automatic,
the more likely you are to be infringing the patent.
a patent can't just cover decoding mp3 files no
--- Todd Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code is not what is patentend. It's the
algorithm.
Of course. So you'd have to use the patented
algorithm to have problems.
I thought the stance was they were enforcing their
patent for all
encoders and only for commercial decoders (and
48 matches
Mail list logo
