On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Nils Faerber wrote:
> How do other developers cope with that?
> I could think of at leat a dozen other development areas where many patents
> could be assumed to exist; for example graphics manipulation. Or are all
> those areas too long in business so that the used methods cannot be patented
> anymore?
They ignore it. Most patents are never enforced, and they could never hope
to locate all the potential patents.
> Agreed but this does not help the current situation either.
> As I mentioned before I have contact to a company that has a licensing
> agreement with FhG. They could sell licenses to Lame users. It would then be
> nearly impossible for FhG to trace who is having a license and who is not.
> The patent problem would be solved.
But would they be permitted to sell licences for lame.
> But what to do wih the GPL that prohibits patented code if I understood
> Mark's posting correctly?
The GPL w/ Lame is okay for me because I insist that no patents infringe
on lame. (Because I have no way to know if they do until I am sued).
However, if you are a patent licensee, then you must know about the
patents and can't distribute the software:
"For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." --GPL
> There are other licenses out there which are nearly equally free. The BSD
> license for example.
I dont agree that BSD is equally free. In the absolute sence, BSD is much
less free then GPL. But, I want the restraints of the GPL as it encourages
more free software.
> The question is what we want to achieve with the license. IMHO that is
> - keep Lame free
> - force anyone using Lame to offer the original sources too
> - encourage further free development
I agree. You also need to be careful w/ Free speech vs Free beer.
> Not yet, no. But it also does not turn any user into a criminal ;)
Right.
Is there a way with current patent law to ensure that users are not at
risk, only distributers?
> > > But what if a patent lawyer tells you?
> > You don't ask.
> Even if you do not ask for it?
Who knows?
> Some time ago FhG sent out letters to all developers and told them...
Havn't told me yet. <vi .procmail> :)
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
