Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
I have copied the Executive Contact and the Legal Counsel for Xiph.org
on this message. Please drop them on follow-ups that are not relevant
to Ogg/Vorbis. Mr. Rosedale and Mr. Moffitt: the topic of MP3 patents
arose on debian-legal (thread at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00081.html ) and we
could all use some competent advice.
On 15 Jul 2005 09:05:10 GMT, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <email@example.com> wrote: [...]
> > If I were defending, say, an Ogg/Vorbis implementation [...] I
> > would argue that a wavelet transform is sufficiently different [...]
> Wavelet transforms are not the only thing the format supports, but it
> may be usable to defend a particular encoder.
Do you happen to know whether the Xiph.org team has retained competent
counsel to evaluate the possible impact of the Fraunhofer and Sisvel
patent suites on Ogg/Vorbis? (They claim that Ogg/Vorbis is
"patent-and-royalty-free" at http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/ , which
is pretty strong language.) If not, maybe Fluendo would fund the
legal fees -- they seem willing to pay money to random lawyers for
(IMHO, IANAL) dubious opinions and to post the result publicly
(Google: gstreamer Moglen).
Personally, I would be little more inclined to rely on the continued
availability of royalty-free open-source Ogg/Vorbis encoders than
their MP3 equivalents without some indication that someone competent
is on record as to the basis for a reasonable belief that they do not
infringe the Fraunhofer suite.