Re: XMMS and the new MP3 patent terms
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:28:31 -0700
David Wright <ichbin@shadlen.org> wrote:
> > So does this mean XMMS gets relegated to non-free now?
>
> No. Putting it there would violate Frauenhofer's rights under just
> about any country's laws. You don't find Adobe Photoshop in non-free,
> do you?
No. But you can find GhostScript and the Gimp in main.
The comparison isn't altogether appropriate. Photoshop is a definite
software. If you managed to illegally download it, you can use it
straightaway. It's Adobe's software as they coded, compiled and
packaged it. But with mp3 we're dealing with a mere template for
possible software. This is what the mp3 snafu is all about. You
could still be "violating" (cough) Fraunhofer's "rights" even if you had
software that's 100% free of their code.
If Adobe had similar rights with Photoshop and decided to enforce it,
the Gimp would be illegal. Some people think Adobe is a baddie when they
have given us such royalty-free formats as PostScript(TM) and PDF. Adobe
will be in a much stronger position to enforce a PostScript patent (if
it does exist) than Fraunhofer with mp3.
> The software in non-free is still free-as-in-beer. It's just not
> free-as-in-speech, at least under DFSG rules.
Reply to: