On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, William Hooper wrote: >>> I'd also like to add another point... People who want MP3 >>> support, presumeably are planning on using such support to play >>> MP3 content which they legally own. That would mean that they >>> have the original music or content on CDROM or some other medium. >> >> Why dopes everyone assume because its 'MP3' that its music or copyright >> material? Sure most of it is, but _NOT_ all of it. >> >> Just one example is we have several community associations that record >> meetings and convert to MP3 for those that cant make it. >> Oh no oh dear, I guess we'll be sued soon from the copyrite >> cops, what next, we'll get sued by TDK for using there cassette tapes? > >No license is needed, assuming these community associations meet Thomson's >requirements: >http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html#8 > >"Not being sued" and "legally able to use/distribute" are two different >things. Don't fall into the trap of "they aren't suing anyone", or it >will just come back to haunt you (see Google for "gif patent").
Once again, I urge you to read the GPL. The Thomson statements do not void the legalese of the GPL license. Unless Thomson *explicity* grants unlimited royalty free license, in writing, to the author of a GPL program that the technology covered by their patents may be used *unrestricted* and completely redistributable in GPL licensed software, then the GPL license of that software can not be upheld. If you take Thomson's statements as being "ok" for use in GPL software, you totally are ignoring the fact that the GPL license allows you to take the GPL software and sell it for profit. Any patent that prevents someone from using GPL licensed software and selling it or doing anything the GPL allows one to do, intereferes with the GPL, and violates it. -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
