[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?

On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 05:39:59PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 03:34:57PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> > Nice url, thanks.  Looks like the license terms for decoders changed
> > since I last looked.. it's now only 50c with a $15k minimum.
> > 
> > Again, decoding is patented, too:
> > 
> >        No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3
> >        decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the
> >        Internet for personal use of end-users.
> According to Frauenhofer, or someone else? I've read that the patents
> don't apply to decoding, and Frauenhofer isn't the most trustworthy
> source on the matter.

According to Thomson Multimedia (the silent half of the duo that created
mp3.. Fraunhoffer threatens and sues at the drop of the hat... Thomson
is a lot slower).

See http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html

Or is "well, I think your patent claim is doody!" sufficient to ignore
it and put claimed infringing items into main?  Is that a legal risk
Debian is willing to take?  On whose word is "that patent is doody"

Brian Moore                       | Of course vi is God's editor.
      Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker     | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
      Usenet Vandal               |  for it to load on the seventh day.
      Netscum, Bane of Elves.

Reply to: