audacity

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:20:30 -0400
>>> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > This is nonsense. There are enough "licenses for the linux
>>>> > environment". A lot of vendors have licensed MP3 en/decoders that
>>>> > work on the linux. The point is that there is no licensed open
>>>> > source mp3 en/decoder.
>>>>
>>>> Name 2.
>>>
>>> http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/
>>> http://www.nero.com/enu/downloads-linux4-update.php
>>
>> Neither of which address the existing MP3 patent issues, only software
>> copyright issues.
>
> They do have a valid patent license (other example is Google). It

Which "they"? The fluendo licensing, from reviewing their printed
license, refers to MIT software licenses. The MIT softwae licenses do
not cover patents held by 3rd parties.

Nero licensing is another story, I'll admit. The restrictions on
MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 use, declared at
http://www.nero.com/enu/end-user-agreement.html, are fascinating: I
assume that Nero has made a vaguely successful commercial agreeement
for the licenses. But that's the first remotely valid license I've
seen for Linux use of MPEG under USA patent reestrictions.

> isn't impossible to get a patent license for "the linux plattform".
> Having a redistribute able one (so that you can ship open source
> software) is where the problems are. Even if fedora could get a
> license (via red hat)
> it would not apply for people that redistribute it hence it would be non free.

And would not be "open", either.