On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:32:21PM +0100, Daniel James wrote: > Hi Steve, > > patent-encumbered works cause problems whether they're shipped in > > non-free or in main. > Quite, but there is the issue of GPL section 7 making this particular > library non-free. The patent licence terms for MP3 technology are > very clear, even for free software decoders: > http://mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html#5 These license terms are only an issue if we recognize the validity of the patent. An *issued* patent is not the same thing as a *valid* patent; and in practice, the distinction between the two is, for us, whether or not the patent is being enforced, since we don't have the money to fight a patent that's being enforced even if it is invalid. It's a pretty good heuristic anyway, because the more someone tries to enforce an invalid patent, the higher the risk that someone will call them on it. > "Q: I have my own/third party mp3 software. Do I need a license? > A: Yes. Use of our patents is not related to a specific implementation > of encoders and decoders, which means that a license under our > patents is needed. " > GPL section 7 refers to "any other pertinent obligations", and I'd say > that for a business operating in the USA or Europe, the patent system > does create very pertinent obligations. - Not for Europe, where software patents are not legal. - In the US, GPL section 7 would render such software undistributable *if* the patent is recognized as valid. > > However, the reason Debian continues to include the mp3 decoder > > library is that this patent, like so many other software patents, > > does not appear to be actively enforced. > I think the existence of the http://mp3licensing.com/ site shows that > it is actively enforced. I think that's a website. Evidence of active enforcement are cease and desist letters, out-of-court settlements, or lawsuits. A website named http://mp3licensing.com isn't evidence of enforcement at all, it's evidence of propaganda. > I can think of a couple of reasons why SPI may not have had a demand for > payment yet. One is that this library is well hidden in the xmms package. > Another may be the perception that the Debian project doesn't have any > money, so isn't worth chasing. All of which is irrelevant speculation, really. The standard is not that the patent holder try to enforce it against *us*, but that we know the patent holder is enforcing it against *anyone*. And apt-cache search mp3 will quickly show that xmms is not the only package in Debian with mp3 decoding support. > When a business or other organisation wants to redistribute Debian > packages, it would be useful to be able to split off the sub-packages > with known patent licensing problems. When it's known to be an actual licensing problem, I'm sure Debian will address it. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature