The Fluendo website does not claim anywhere that they "avoid the patent licensing problem". Rather, they want to sell you a proprietary plugin together with a patent license. Apparently they have acquired rights to sell licensed plugins.Fluendo provides our customers both with the actual plugin for GStreamer and the needed patent licenses. Customers who already have patent licenses themselves can license the plugins separatly. URL: http://www.fluendo.com/products.php?product=plugins
What is the basis for their conclusion that any patent license is "needed"? Did a court of law hold the patents valid and infringed? If not, then no license is "needed." They may have signed a license because it was cheaper than fighting the patent, but that is different than being "needed" and that certainly does not trigger GPL Section 7, which is what I believe was the initial issue raised by this thread, i.e. whether Section 7 is violated because some software is distributed that someone else think may be covered by a possibly valid patent. Such a situation does not trigger GPL Section 7, nor does it forbid redistribution of GPL'd code.
--Dan -- Daniel B. Ravicher Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.softwarefreedom.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
