Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
[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 (honest). We're not rushing the release, anyway ;p. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 important. If it was just a question of $50k (or, remember, $0.75 per copy) i'm sure there'd be mumbling and grumbling, but it'd be done - but as I said in the original mail it becomes a far more important problem in regard of Mandrake's license terms. That to me was the big potential problem, not just the money. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 distributed with the commercial CD in power packs, the free sotware CD's are not what makes the price. You can get them for free (as beer) and you can get them for free associated with another, non free (as a beer and speech) product. Hmmm, that's a really interesting point. That might even save us ;p. And if you join Mandrake's club, you pay for the future (your payroll, pals), not for what already exists. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 telling of the situation. 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). -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 by one $50,000 donation to Mandrake. (-: Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 here regarding the rewrite of rpmdrake. At least that's the impression you've given on numerous ocassions. For example this message: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mandrake-cookerm=102853338630695w=2 If I got the wrong impression sorry. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org If your love has no hope of being welcomed do not voice it; for if it be silent it can endure, a guarded flame, within you. - The Wisdom of the Sands
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 blueprint of something that infringes patent, not the device as such). This is already known to Mandrake - for example, it's why the -mdk .src.rpm of freetype can include an option to compile with the bytecode interpreter enabled (which produces the plf binary rpm; compiling the same .src.rpm with it disabled produces the mdk binary rpm). So if we do have to strip mp3 stuff from 9.0, could we not simply include the relevant *source* rpms in all versions of the distribution, together with extremely prominent instructions on how to recompile them (or even an option within rpmdrake to do so), coupled with the necessary warnings that doing so would be illegal under US law? US law is braindead enough to make that not illegal? 1- we provide sourcecode 2- we provide a button in rpmdrake to compile it and install it 3- as long as we have a text reading continuing is illegal by the us law, we are legal Really??? Time to change your laws, people! It's simple nonsense.. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 matter what frauenhoffer might say. The problem is that they pretend their patent is ok, so as long as we don't have an advice from a lawyer or decision from a court we can't really know if they're right or not. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 last week merely speculation? That's the change. The licensing page now simply lays out the fees with no mention whatsoever of the old exception for free software. You have to look at the Wayback Machine or on some mailing lists to see copies of the old page with the exception, now. Some sites are already reporting Red Hat have removed mp3 decoding stuff from their current beta, btw...dunno if this is accurate. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 essentially audio data compressed with a certain algorithm. The *only* way to re-extract the data is to run it through the same algorithm in the opposite direction. This is ultimately all mp3 encoding / decoding does. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
-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 (Free + algorithm!) ( a bit simplistic, but you get the idea). Danny - -- Everything is possible. Pass the word. -- Rita Mae Brown, Six of One -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9bKpUaeiN+EU2vEIRAiTXAJ40qMVDq3mONkOJefhqYTHIuuyeUgCaA/87 xEus0mHbfy8NS/BwL7pwsLw= =EdpD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 that's not derived from it most likely doesn't infringe any patent and can't require royalties no matter what frauenhoffer might say. The problem is that they pretend their patent is ok, so as long as we don't have an advice from a lawyer or decision from a court we can't really know if they're right or not.
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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. Cheers, Jason Adam Williamson wrote: 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 last week merely speculation? That's the change. The licensing page now simply lays out the fees with no mention whatsoever of the old exception for free software. You have to look at the Wayback Machine or on some mailing lists to see copies of the old page with the exception, now. Some sites are already reporting Red Hat have removed mp3 decoding stuff from their current beta, btw...dunno if this is accurate.
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
[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/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 litigation??. If it is, then this thread is a waste of time. Heh - I just noticed it's out very own Gotz Washck who posted this to slashdot in the first place :). Maybe he can clarify. Why do you post this now when, as I mentioned, archive.org seems to show the terms changed in August last year? Is it wrong? And Jason, PLEASE DON'T SET A REPLY-TO HEADER WHEN POSTING TO THIS LIST! -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
[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??. -=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=-- From: Haavard Kvaalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [XMMS-DEVEL] mp3 status ? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed Aug 28 13:26:49 2002 +0200 On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Colin Leroy wrote: What are you going to do about this new mp3 issue ? We are not going to do anything about it. I'm a bit surprised that this has come up now, mp3licensing.com has never listed any exemption for freeware decoders. I suppose that the rates have changed recently. I don't think that they were zero for decoders earlier either, but I'm not sure. The reference that has been used to document freeware decoders exemption from licencing fees is this: URL:http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing.html - Håvard -=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=-- Haavard Kvaalen == lead xmms developer. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 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. From the silence from official MDK people on this issue i'd guess that's exactly what's going on right now. I've just done a bit of checking on this with the WayBack Machine (www.archive.org), looking at revisions to http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html over time; interestingly that page seems to have stopped listing an exemption for freely distributed players on August 20, 2001, which makes me wonder why this has come up now and not earlier. Any information anyone?
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 :-) Maybe he can clarify. Why do you post this now when, as I mentioned, archive.org seems to show the terms changed in August last year? Is it wrong? I also didn't noticed the changed terms, because like everybody else I didn't monitor that web page.. But as Redhat has removed mpg123 from their Rawhide package on August 20, more people started to care. I thought it was about time to discuss this problem in public, that's why I've posted the news on Slashdot. I hope we'll find a solution, so everybody can continue to listen to mp3s after the update to Mandrake 9.0. -- Götz Waschk master of computer science University of Rostock http://wwwtec.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~waschk/waschk.asc for PGP key -- Logout Fascism! --
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
--- 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- as long as we have a text reading continuing is illegal by the us law, we are legal Really??? Time to change your laws, people! It's simple nonsense.. Agreed. Well - as someone says, making it so easy may be legally dubious. But the underlying point is entirely correct, i'm 100% sure of this. Under US patent law, you can publish a blueprint for a machine that infringes someone else's patent entirely legally, since you're not actually selling something *tangible* that breaks patent, you're just telling people how you could - theoretically - build a machine that breaks patent. I think it's considered that outlawing this would be an unreasonable infringement of free speech. The same laws consider the source code of software a blueprint, not a functioning machine that infringes patent, since you can't actually *do* anything with source code - it has to be compiled before it becomes a machine that infringes patent law. As I said, this is why Mandrake can happily distribute a source RPM for freetype that can be compiled with the patent-infringing bytecode interpreter, but it can't ship the binary library compiled with this option turned on; thus the single -mdk .src.rpm can generate both -mdk and -plf binary .rpms. It's also the reason why you can legally download the source code to LAME but not any compiled binaries. As someone pointed out in response to my original post - making it as easy as a button in rpmdrake might be skating on legal thin ice, so you should at least definitely take legal advice before doing that. But certainly, sticking the SRPMS on the main CDs and including instructions on compiling them, both within the distro and on Mandrake's website, ought to be perfectly legal so long as there's a disclaimer stating that it's a breach of patent to compile them in the US (unless, of course, you've paid your license fee). IANAL, so as a matter of course this should of course be checked with Mandrake's lawyers, but i'm pretty certain it's correct. What really sucks is you need a decoder to even convert mp3s to oggs, so we either ignore this or leave people high and dry :o( __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-26/msg00091.html -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 indeed excluded from possible litigation??. -=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=-- From: Haavard Kvaalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [XMMS-DEVEL] mp3 status ? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed Aug 28 13:26:49 2002 +0200 On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Colin Leroy wrote: What are you going to do about this new mp3 issue ? We are not going to do anything about it. I'm a bit surprised that this has come up now, mp3licensing.com has never listed any exemption for freeware decoders. I suppose that the rates have changed recently. I don't think that they were zero for decoders earlier either, but I'm not sure. The reference that has been used to document freeware decoders exemption from licencing fees is this: URL:http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3-licensing.html - Håvard -=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=---=-=-- Haavard Kvaalen == lead xmms developer. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/ Lemme link to the archive.org page in question: 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 second is the version that's been current since then. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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. http://web.archive.org/web/20010331223305/www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-26/msg00091.html Hum, don't forget that Freeware != Freeofcharge != Freesoftware, I think that's the point. There was only exceptions for free of charge decoders. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 second is the version that's been current since then. Right - though it seems that we were not respecting their terms before time, because we don't distribute the mp3 players free of charge... -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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. - JL. Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 mp3.com: Only two prominent MP3 encoders for UNIX remained: Fraunhofer IIS' own MP3Enc and the freely available BladeEnc. How did BladeEnc survive the royalties crunch? The answer lies in geography. Tord Jansson has been developing BladeEnc in Sweden, where the government does not honor patents on algorithms. The MP3 standard is an algorithm for encoding audio, and therefore, Jansson is not required to pay royalties for his encoder. http://www.mp3.com/news/264.html 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! -- Gary Lawrence Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Advantage through Community Software : http://www.teledyn.com Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.(Pablo Picasso)
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
-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 never listed any exemption for freeware decoders. That is incorrect. http://web.archive.org/web/20010331223305/www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/sw dec.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-26/msg00091.ht ml 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 distributed with the commercial CD in power packs, the free sotware CD's are not what makes the price. You can get them for free (as beer) and you can get them for free associated with another, non free (as a beer and speech) product. And if you join Mandrake's club, you pay for the future (your payroll, pals), not for what already exists. CU CPHIL - -- Ta mère elle croit que Netscape c'est une touche du clavier. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9bR7gYJwqltj/jHgRAkNZAKDGc47b9OKj9lyNYIvswgrm0v2lbACgliS1 Mashr/s6jPFcywqNdzgcGCg= =tmcL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 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 mp3.com: Only two prominent MP3 encoders for UNIX remained: Fraunhofer IIS' own MP3Enc and the freely available BladeEnc. How did BladeEnc survive the royalties crunch? The answer lies in geography. Tord Jansson has been developing BladeEnc in Sweden, where the government does not honor patents on algorithms. The MP3 standard is an algorithm for encoding audio, and therefore, Jansson is not required to pay royalties for his encoder. http://www.mp3.com/news/264.html 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!
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 simplistic, but you get the idea). Ah, but you're looking at it a little bit too simply. x^3-x^2+y != x+y^2 but for one number (actually two). The algorithm that moves between the left domain and the right domain is what is patented (ie from a pure wav file to a compressed mp3 file). The interesting part about this algorithm is that it is reversible as well (but with some loss in quality). This is directly opposite to things like an MD5 hash or a DES3 hash, which is a one way encryption. The fact that the MP3 algorithm is two way is a big deal and took a lot of research and money to come up with. They are just trying to make their money back. Now, having said that, I think software patents should be illegal because the patent system was intended to protect a tangible product, not an algorithm. The current patent law was designed when the development time thru production to actual market was in years. Now that it is in months (or shorter), it penalizes business to have competitors and rewards shoddy workmanship just because it was first. Blue skies... Todd -- Todd Lyons -- MandrakeSoft, Inc. http://www.mandrakesoft.com/ UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.0-0.3mdk Kernel 2.4.19-5mdk msg72891/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 Free decoding software is indeed excluded from possible litigation??. If it is, then this thread is a waste of time. Heh - I just noticed it's out very own Gotz Washck who posted this to slashdot in the first place :). Maybe he can clarify. Why do you post this now when, as I mentioned, archive.org seems to show the terms changed in August last year? Is it wrong? 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 mailing list server is not very good. -- -- Igor
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 the reply function will go to them. I do it whenver I want someone to send me something off list to help debug. Just go look through all the many debates about this that have occured. They're in the archive... -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org If your love has no hope of being welcomed do not voice it; for if it be silent it can endure, a guarded flame, within you. - The Wisdom of the Sands
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
--- 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 about it. If someone has their address and reply-to set to the same address, that's just wrong. If they're mailing the Cooker list and they have some other reply-to set, they should have probably just subscribed to the Cooker list with that address in the first place. So the list server probably *could* do that, but it'd probably be doing extra work it didn't need to do, and it may cause people to get messages twice. This mailing list server is not very good. I won't argue __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 mailing list server is not very good. It sets it if it's blank, but if a user wants to force replies away from the list and to him/herself, the mailing list manager allows him/her to do so. It's when that user has it set as default operation is when the problem occurs. Those of us using mutt don't even notice the improperly configured mailers :-/ Blue skies... Todd -- Todd Lyons -- MandrakeSoft, Inc. http://www.mandrakesoft.com/ UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.0-0.3mdk Kernel 2.4.19-5mdk msg72908/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 being welcomed do not voice it; for if it be silent it can endure, a guarded flame, within you. - The Wisdom of the Sands
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 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? -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology Phone: 818 354 2903 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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, 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 the reply function will go to them. I do it whenver I want someone to send me something off list to help debug. Just go look through all the many debates about this that have occured. They're in the archive...
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 comes down to a PLF package instead of ML paying for MP3's, I'll take it. Regards, Jason Greenwood PS, how many things that require licenses should ML pay for in a FREELY downloadable distro??? None IMHO. The whole point of ML is to be 100% OSS, AFAIK. Bryan Whitehead wrote: 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 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?
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
[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 would be a sad day. So if it comes down to a PLF package instead of ML paying for MP3's, I'll take it. Regards, 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 employee. I was just throwing it up as a maybe this is an option. A lawsuit from the owners of the mp3 licence is far worse than just paying the entire $50k It plain sucks no matter how you look at it. -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology Phone: 818 354 2903 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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), $50k is a non-trivial amount of money, but that's not the important point. 2), it would necessitate a license change, were this patent issue actually to apply. Mandrake's license makes it freely redistributable; once you have Mandrake you can perfectly legally give it to anyone else. This wouldn't be allowed under the terms of Thompson's patent license. XMMS would somehow then have to be not legally redistributable under Mandrake's license - effectively it'd have to be included with commercially licensed software on the for-sale edition only. This is one of the big problems with this issue - if you think about it it doesn't apply to Microsoft or Apple, since you can't legally redistribute WMP or iTunes. But cf Jason Greenwood's recent posting, this is all a non-issue anyway. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 voice it; for if it be silent it can endure, a guarded flame, within you. - The Wisdom of the Sands
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 employee. I was just throwing it up as a maybe this is an option. A lawsuit from the owners of the mp3 licence is far worse than just paying the entire $50k It plain sucks no matter how you look at it. sarcasm Maybe NASA has some spare change floating around that they can donate to pay the licensing. /sarcasm 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 telling of the situation. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org If your love has no hope of being welcomed do not voice it; for if it be silent it can endure, a guarded flame, within you. - The Wisdom of the Sands
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 $10k. And that's chump change next to the salary of one employee. I was just throwing it up as a maybe this is an option. A lawsuit from the owners of the mp3 licence is far worse than just paying the entire $50k It plain sucks no matter how you look at it. You can't split stuff up like that. Only the entity who is licensed the patent has the right to use it. If RH licensed it, they would not even be able to transfer it over to Mandrake, much less have both use them at the same time. sarcasm Maybe NASA has some spare change floating around that they can donate to pay the licensing. /sarcasm 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 telling of the situation. The only reason Mandrake has stayed afloat is because they use resources efficiently and don't throw money out the window by hiring extra people (look at how much work is done by volunteers). $50k is not chump change, it's the annual salary for one full-time employee. Given that Mandrake doesn't have that many employees, it makes a big difference in the finances. Anyway, let's close this pointless thread. I think Fraunhofer already said that they won't charge patent money for free decoders. If you didn't have a chance to read the message because of the mailing list having problems, I've attached it below. -- -- Igor -- --- repost of message follows - [Cooker] [Fwd: Re: MP3 Licensing Question]Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:58:53 +1200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Cooker Mandrake [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I forward this to the cooker list. I wrote to Frauenhofer and their response is below. This does not fully answer our question as it does not address Open Source but commercially sold software decoders. BUT, it does say the licensing policy has not changed and since Mandrake has not been sued up till now, that should be a good indicator that Mandrake should continue the way it always has - that is to continue (as before) to INCLUDE software based Open Source MP3 Players in the distribution. Hope this helps to calrify the issues involved. Regards, Jason Greenwood Original Message Subject: Re: MP3 Licensing Question Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:47:01 +0200 From: Stefan Geyersberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Fraunhofer IIS-A To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, the following statement was sent to the Slash Dot.org Web site for clarification. It should be up within the next days. -- Steve Syatt SSA Public Relations for Thomson multimedia (the lower case is not a typo...) My Tel: (818) 501-0700 Statement from Thomson Multimedia, mp3 Licensing In a posting appearing Tuesday August 27, 2002 on the Web site 'slashdot.org,' an individual cited a change in the mp3 license fee structure of Thomson and Fraunhofer. The writer of the post apparently misread the mp3 licensing conditions, as Thomson's mp3 licensing policy has not experienced any change. To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995, Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed software decoders. For commercially sold decoders - primarily hardware mp3 players - the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the beginning of the program. Therefore, there is no change in our licensing policy and we continue to believe that the royalty fees of .75 cents per mp3 player (on average selling over $200 dollars) has no measurable impact on the consumer experience. -- Jason Greenwood wrote: Dear Sir/Miss, A war is raging in the Open Source Community regarding MP3 Players. In particular, the inclusion of the XMMS MP3 Player Plugin in the forthcoming Mandrake 9.0 Release. Is it required to obtain a license for software based MP3 Players that are Open Source (Free)?? Your pages used to address this but have been removed. Please clarify for all involved. As an OSS software user I hope that you make exemptions in your licensing for Open Source Projects as improvements in the format are returned to you in the form of source. As such you receive valuable development input in place of royalty fees. I was not commissioned by anyone to write this to
[Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 device as such). This is already known to Mandrake - for example, it's why the -mdk .src.rpm of freetype can include an option to compile with the bytecode interpreter enabled (which produces the plf binary rpm; compiling the same .src.rpm with it disabled produces the mdk binary rpm). So if we do have to strip mp3 stuff from 9.0, could we not simply include the relevant *source* rpms in all versions of the distribution, together with extremely prominent instructions on how to recompile them (or even an option within rpmdrake to do so), coupled with the necessary warnings that doing so would be illegal under US law? This would seem to combine the bare minimum of legal compliance with the minimum possible disruption for users...just an idea. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 considered the blueprint of something that infringes patent, not the device as such). This is already known to Mandrake - for example, it's why the -mdk .src.rpm of freetype can include an option to compile with the bytecode interpreter enabled (which produces the plf binary rpm; compiling the same .src.rpm with it disabled produces the mdk binary rpm). So if we do have to strip mp3 stuff from 9.0, could we not simply include the relevant *source* rpms in all versions of the distribution, together with extremely prominent instructions on how to recompile them (or even an option within rpmdrake to do so), coupled with the necessary warnings that doing so would be illegal under US law? This would seem to combine the bare minimum of legal compliance with the minimum possible disruption for users...just an idea. Warning: I am not a lawyer. I believe you're right, but the farther you go towards making stuff automatic, the more likely you are to be infringing the patent. Basically, shipping the original tar.gz is probably legal (if the user gets to type 'make'); SRPM - probably legal with caveats; SRPM with automatic installer - probably not safe. Since only a court can determine what's legal and what's not, Mandrake decides what they need do to be absolutely safe. My personal opinion: Mandrake should make it as easy as possible for users to compile and install MP3-playing stuff on the machine. Include the original sources on the CD, provide instructions, that type of thing. -- -- Igor
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
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 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 matter what frauenhoffer might say. 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 last week merely speculation? Blue skies... Todd -- Todd Lyons -- MandrakeSoft, Inc. http://www.mandrakesoft.com/ UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.0-0.3mdk Kernel 2.4.19-5mdk msg72658/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] thoughts on mp3 issue
--- 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 leaving free decoders alone). Has that changed since last week or was last week merely speculation? The frauenhofer page I've seen doesn't say, all it does is give different royalty rates for decoders depending on whether or not they're based on frauenhoffer code. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
