Re: [[email protected]: [David Neary]RE: MP3 licensing]
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:23:03 -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Neary wrote: > > So, officially, although this is not stated anywhere on their site, > > they allow non-commercial use. > > It is stated on their website. Read > http://mp3licensing.com/help/enduser.html for the following information: > > > Do you license mp3/mp3PRO software to end users? > > > > No. We license mp3/mp3PRO software and patents to developers and > > manufacturers of software applications and hardware devices. > > There is no license fee for iPod use or Winamp use, for example. But > Apple (in the case of iPods) had to pay a hardware MP3 decoder fee. And > AOL (or whomever distributes Winamp) had to pay a fee for that "PC > Software Application" (to use the language Thomson/Fraunhofer uses). > > If Ubuntu were to distribute an MP3 player program to an American, > Ubuntu would be distributing non-free software to that American. That > American can run the program to play MP3s, but they cannot share that > program with their friends and neighbors without first paying a patent > fee (there are per-unit and one-time fees for "PC Software > Applications"). There continues to be a conflict between free software > and American patent law because in America (and some other countries) > software patents exist. > > This is why one cannot focus on providing complete compatibility with > the outside world and simultaneously provide free software. So... I'm as big a free software bigot as anyone; I've changed GNOME press releases and websites to say GNU/Linux and Free Software instead of Open Source, and I refuse to buy an ipod or use mp3 personally. [I'll admit that I have succumbed to flash.] But this discussion is not productive- we're going to lean towards providing open formats ourselves, and we're going to ship whatever ubuntu (or whatever other liveCD we base on) ships in terms of decoders, and that is basically the end of the discussion. If you want to continue to argue the details of the legality of it, talk to ubuntu; it you want to debate the philosophy of it, /dev/null is probably most appropriate. Luis -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [[email protected]: [David Neary]RE: MP3 licensing]
David Neary wrote: So, officially, although this is not stated anywhere on their site, they allow non-commercial use. It is stated on their website. Read http://mp3licensing.com/help/enduser.html for the following information: Do you license mp3/mp3PRO software to end users? No. We license mp3/mp3PRO software and patents to developers and manufacturers of software applications and hardware devices. There is no license fee for iPod use or Winamp use, for example. But Apple (in the case of iPods) had to pay a hardware MP3 decoder fee. And AOL (or whomever distributes Winamp) had to pay a fee for that "PC Software Application" (to use the language Thomson/Fraunhofer uses). If Ubuntu were to distribute an MP3 player program to an American, Ubuntu would be distributing non-free software to that American. That American can run the program to play MP3s, but they cannot share that program with their friends and neighbors without first paying a patent fee (there are per-unit and one-time fees for "PC Software Applications"). There continues to be a conflict between free software and American patent law because in America (and some other countries) software patents exist. This is why one cannot focus on providing complete compatibility with the outside world and simultaneously provide free software. -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [[email protected]: [David Neary]RE: MP3 licensing]
Hi, Luis Villa wrote: > (1) it doesn't really matter what we think, mostly it matters what the > distro creator thinks. In this case, assuming we go with Ubuntu, the > answer appears to be 'yes, we can.' > > (2) I wouldn't object to a directory on the desktop with a title of > some sort like 'legacy files' or 'compatibility demo files', but I'd > like the primary focus of our content and demos to be about free > software and open formats. I agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to make your job any harder. I do think it would be a little uncomfortable if some livecd user did try to play an mp3 and it didn't work. I agree that the primary focus should be on free, open formats and software. I disagree that we should hobble software if we don't have to. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/ -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [[email protected]: [David Neary]RE: MP3 licensing]
(1) it doesn't really matter what we think, mostly it matters what the distro creator thinks. In this case, assuming we go with Ubuntu, the answer appears to be 'yes, we can.' (2) I wouldn't object to a directory on the desktop with a title of some sort like 'legacy files' or 'compatibility demo files', but I'd like the primary focus of our content and demos to be about free software and open formats. Luis On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 19:35:06 +0100, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I mailed mp3licensing.com today to get an official position (and > to ask whether they'd grant a permanent, irrevocable licence for > GPL or LGPL implementations of the codecs. I got this answer. > > So, officially, although this is not stated anywhere on their > site, they allow non-commercial use. > > Cheers, > Dave. > > - Forwarded message from Caldwell Rocky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > Subject: [David Neary]RE: MP3 licensing > Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:07:16 -0800 > From: Caldwell Rocky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Dear David, > > Thanks for contacting mp3 Licensing. > > You are asking legal questions, and we do not provide legal advice. > > However, obviously, mp3 implementations by GPL and LGPL software use the > patents developed by Frauhofer and Thomson. Without the patents, there > would be no GPL or LGPL mp3 software. > > Usage of any patents is determined by the patent holders. > > We are not prepared to issue and irrevocable, free patent license to GPL > and LGPL software using our patents. We do allow non-commerical use of > our patents. However, the GPL and LGPL software allow onward > distribution that can easily be non-commercial. > > As the LAME software page states, "Using the LAME encoding engine (or > other mp3 encoding technology) in your software may require a patent > license in some countries." > > Regards, > > Rocky Caldwell > > Director, mp3 Licensing > > Thomson Patents and LIcensing > > RB Courtyard, Suite 100 > 16935 W. Bernardo Drive > Rancho Bernardo, CA 92127 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.mp3licensing.com > Thomson (Euronext Paris: 18453; NYSE: TMS) provides end-to-end solutions > (technologies, equipment and services) to the entertainment industries. > To advance and enable the digital media transition, Thomson has four > principal divisions: Content and Networks, Consumer Products, > Components, and Licensing. The company distributes its products under > the Technicolor, Grass Valley, THOMSON and RCA brand names. > For more information: www.thomson.net > > -Original Message- > From: David Neary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Neary > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 1:58 AM > To: *SAND MP3 Info > Subject: MP3 licensing > > Hi, > > Would you mind explaining to me the implications of your patent claims > on Free Software applications, please? > > Do free software or open source applications which include an MP3 > decoder or encoder require an MP3 license? In this situation, what > licensing fees are applicable? What jurisdictions are governed by these > patents? > > Would you be prepared to issue an irrevocable, free patent license to > GPL and LGPL software implementing the MP3 codec? > > I am unfamiliar with the legal issues involved, being European, but I > would like to know more about your patent claims, and how they impact > software I work on and with. > > Regards, > Dave Neary. > > -- > David Neary, > Lyon, France >E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - End forwarded message - > > -- > David Neary, > Lyon, France >E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/ > -- > marketing-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
[[email protected]: [David Neary]RE: MP3 licensing]
Hi all, I mailed mp3licensing.com today to get an official position (and to ask whether they'd grant a permanent, irrevocable licence for GPL or LGPL implementations of the codecs. I got this answer. So, officially, although this is not stated anywhere on their site, they allow non-commercial use. Cheers, Dave. - Forwarded message from Caldwell Rocky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Subject: [David Neary]RE: MP3 licensing Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:07:16 -0800 From: Caldwell Rocky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear David, Thanks for contacting mp3 Licensing. You are asking legal questions, and we do not provide legal advice. However, obviously, mp3 implementations by GPL and LGPL software use the patents developed by Frauhofer and Thomson. Without the patents, there would be no GPL or LGPL mp3 software. Usage of any patents is determined by the patent holders. We are not prepared to issue and irrevocable, free patent license to GPL and LGPL software using our patents. We do allow non-commerical use of our patents. However, the GPL and LGPL software allow onward distribution that can easily be non-commercial. As the LAME software page states, "Using the LAME encoding engine (or other mp3 encoding technology) in your software may require a patent license in some countries." Regards, Rocky Caldwell Director, mp3 Licensing Thomson Patents and LIcensing RB Courtyard, Suite 100 16935 W. Bernardo Drive Rancho Bernardo, CA 92127 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mp3licensing.com Thomson (Euronext Paris: 18453; NYSE: TMS) provides end-to-end solutions (technologies, equipment and services) to the entertainment industries. To advance and enable the digital media transition, Thomson has four principal divisions: Content and Networks, Consumer Products, Components, and Licensing. The company distributes its products under the Technicolor, Grass Valley, THOMSON and RCA brand names. For more information: www.thomson.net -Original Message- From: David Neary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Neary Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 1:58 AM To: *SAND MP3 Info Subject: MP3 licensing Hi, Would you mind explaining to me the implications of your patent claims on Free Software applications, please? Do free software or open source applications which include an MP3 decoder or encoder require an MP3 license? In this situation, what licensing fees are applicable? What jurisdictions are governed by these patents? Would you be prepared to issue an irrevocable, free patent license to GPL and LGPL software implementing the MP3 codec? I am unfamiliar with the legal issues involved, being European, but I would like to know more about your patent claims, and how they impact software I work on and with. Regards, Dave Neary. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - End forwarded message - -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/ -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
