On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:44:24AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> Hmmm, if my memory serves, it was the Good Old USA that until the late
> 1800s or so did not recognize patents from Europe or elsewhere. Only later,
> under pressure from European nations, did the USA change its stance.
> Now I gue
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:40:18AM +0800, Isaac To wrote:
> So basically, because of the clarification of Thomson, the authors of
> mpg321 (or any other GPL mp3 players) or any distributors (Debian
> included) can no longer grant you a license saying "you are free to
> use, copy, modify and distri
> "Isaac" == Isaac To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> No conditions have been imposed on Debian. Until a registered
John> letter from Thomson's lawyers arrives GPLd mp3 stuff can go in
John> non-free.
Isaac> The program does not satisfy DFSG (it cannot be sold at a fee),
> "John" == John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> No conditions have been imposed on Debian. Until a registered
John> letter from Thomson's lawyers arrives GPLd mp3 stuff can go in
John> non-free.
The program does not satisfy DFSG (it cannot be sold at a fee), so there i
Isaac quotes:
> 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> conditions are imposed on you...
^^
And writes:
> Well, perhaps Thomson didn't have made the "allegation" yet,
> "David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> But Debian does encourgage people to sell CD-ROMs of whatever is
David> not in non-free. If someone were to include an MP3 player on a
David> Debian CD-ROM and sell it, that person would be violating the MP3
David> l
The XMMS people are probably right that they don't need to change
anything, because they are not selling XMMS.
Red Hat was right to remove MP3 players, because Red Hat is selling its
distribution.
Technically, Debian doesn't sell its distribution, so in theory Debian
shouldn't have to change
> "Paul" == Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> OK, I *know* it's been mentioned in the thread already, but in
Paul> case people somehow missed it, the patent holders clarified thier
Paul> position on August 29th, and I'm really getting tired of this
Paul> thread.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:24:27PM +0200, Balazs Javor wrote:
> I'm not sure whether the administrative overhead makes this worth it,
> but did it occure to someone, that somebody could sell the mp3 plugin
> for XMMS or other players for a nominal fee
> PS: I don't want to start a troll, I just feel that free software gets
> threatened by US
> patents and the only way to get rid of this problem is by ignoring it...
Please read previous mail in the thread.
This is not a US patent. This is a European patent. For MP3, the US/EU
distinction is
Hi,
I've missed a couple of messages in this discussion, so sorry
if this was already mentioned before...
I'm not sure whether the administrative overhead makes this worth it,
but did it occure to someone, that somebody could sell the mp3 plugin
for XMMS or other players for a nominal fee of say
> "Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 01:25:39PM +0800, Isaac To wrote:
>> Hm... then we can make everybody "happy" (sort-of) by moving xmms
>> mpg123 module, mpg123 package and mpg321 package into non-free?
Colin> Not necessaril
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) writes:
> [1 ]
> Isaac To wrote:
>> If you look at the license of non-free software in the Debian archive and
>> read the copyright file of each of them, you can find that they allow the
>> binary code to be distributed in a Debian CD-ROM to be sold. They become
>>
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 01:25:39PM +0800, Isaac To wrote:
> Hm... then we can make everybody "happy" (sort-of) by moving xmms mpg123
> module, mpg123 package and mpg321 package into non-free?
Not necessarily. If it is not legal to distribute the package at all
without paying a fee (and I'm not ma
are gets
threatened by US
patents and the only way to get rid of this problem is by ignoring it...
- Original Message -
From: "Isaac To" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: XMMS and the new MP3 patent terms
> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Restrictions on commercial sale violate point 1 of the DFSG, and
Joey> such a violation alone is enough to put software into non-free. So
Joey> be very careful before selling CD's of debian's non-free archive.
Hm... then we
Isaac writes:
> If you look at the license of non-free software in the Debian archive and
> read the copyright file of each of them, you can find that they allow the
> binary code to be distributed in a Debian CD-ROM to be sold.
Not true. One of the reasons for a package to go into non-free is
p
Isaac To wrote:
> If you look at the license of non-free software in the Debian archive and
> read the copyright file of each of them, you can find that they allow the
> binary code to be distributed in a Debian CD-ROM to be sold. They become
> non-free because of things like source code not prov
> "W" == W Paul Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
W> Are you saying even remove from non-free? Some of us have good reason
W> to use MP3 files from 3rd parties. For example:
W> http://www.banjonews.com/
If you look at the license of non-free software in the Debian archive and
rea
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 22:36:35 -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:51:19PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
>
> | There is a version of ogg123 for the Sharp Zaurus Gnu/Linux based
> | laptop and it is integer based, so that problem has been solved.
>
> The Intel 486sx
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Klaus Imgrund) writes:
> On the xmms website is a statement that nothing has changed.
> I tend to stick with what xmmms has on their site - after all it's their
>program.They would probably know that they are about to go to jail;-0
I agree with this. But some seem to think it
Well,
I did poke around a bit.All I found about this whole story is an email from a reader
to slashdot and a article in geek (or geekweek-whatever) that is based on the email.
I can't find any statements from Fraunhofer,Thomson or Redhat confirming this.
On the xmms website is a statement that no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac To) writes:
> * All commercial distribution of Debian must choose either to take away
> all MP3 decoding programs from their non-US distribution (or not
> shipping non-US at all), or to pay Thomson accordingly. Alternatively,
> Debian can simply drop MP3 p
23 matches
Mail list logo
