Hello All! While reading docs for well-known mpg123 I found the following:
================================= Some notes about patents and mpg123 by Thomas Orgis ---------------------------------------------------
There has been a lot of confusion over mp3 (or more generic mpeg audio) patents and licensing issues due to the patents held by Fraunhofer and marketed by Thomson. So, yes, there are patents held by Fraunhofer that are claimed to cover mpeg audio technology. There are also claims that they cover any similar technology (like OGG). You may argue if these patents are valid at all (being illegal software patents, or being preceded by known scientific publications), but they are internationally accepted by patent authorities and if you want to use mp3 commercially you should check
for the Fraunhofer/Thomson opinion and their terms.
Since mpg123 is only a mpeg audio player, a good deal of patents that describe the encoding process (the tricky part) will not apply. Also, statements from the patent holders up to now always allowed the non-commercial distribution of mpeg audio decoders without any fee. They want you to pay for a license when you want to make money by selling a decoder, though. We don't sell mpg123. Additionally, one should not forget the fact that the ideas are getting old; the basic (funded by government, btw.) research was somewhen back around the 80s and many patents are going to expire soon, best example in Germany:
P/DE 35 06 912 Method of transmission of an audio signal using grouping of amplitude values
Application was 22.02.1986 in Germany (and around Europe in the same time Jan/Feb 1986). German patents last 20 years... now we have 24.07.2006. Time has come...
The idea of a patent is to make the inventor open the invention to the public by giving him some safe time to turn this invention into economical benefit. People using (and improving!) the technology freely after that time is _the_ most important aspect of that idea.
Oh, I should mention the "core" mp3 patent (from http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP287578):
DE 3629434 / EP287578 Digital coding process
Application date in Germany was 29.08.1986 - that means that in a month from now (remember: 24.07.2006) this patent finds its natural end.
Then, there are other patents listed on the Fraunhofer/Thomson website that came very late... The one about join stereo coding was applied for in Feb 1995. Did mpg123 implement that already back then? History is a bit blurry there... There is a patent applied for in 1997, but probably covering encoding only. Still, even if that weren't the case - the basic decoding functionality of mpg123 didn't change that much after 1997; and they couldn't have patented existing functionality. In general, few patents seem to cover decoders at all. Of course, with me being no lawyer, that statement is not trustworthy...
Bottom line is:
While Fraunhofer/Thomson don't want to charge free software players - they said that a long time ago, the time for they being able to place such charges is expiring or has already expired. One should really think before adding mp3pro/surround support to mpg123, though, since there are for sure more recent patents for that.
And don't forget: The progress bar is covered by a patent, too. =================================
Briefly speaking from the above notes we may find the following:
* Looks like Ogg "violates" patents as well as mp3. * Fraunhofer patents already expired in Europe.
What about US?
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
that describe the encoding process (the tricky part) will not apply. Also, statements from the patent holders up to now always allowed the non-commercial distribution of mpeg audio decoders without any fee.
Such non-commercial use restrictions are not compatible with Free and open source software or the Fedora licensing guidelines. moreover GPL license also requires a written non-limiting patent grant or we can't include GPL software that infringes patents on regions that enforce patents on software.
Bottom line is:
While Fraunhofer/Thomson don't want to charge free software players - they said that a long time ago, the time for they being able to place such charges is expiring or has already expired. One should really think before adding mp3pro/surround support to mpg123, though, since there are for sure more recent patents for that.
And don't forget: The progress bar is covered by a patent, too.
Briefly speaking from the above notes we may find the following:
- Looks like Ogg "violates" patents as well as mp3.
"Looks" are not enough. The claim should be very specific.
- Fraunhofer patents already expired in Europe.
What about US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/ http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html
Rahul
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 13:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
moreover GPL license also requires a written non-limiting patent grant or we can't include GPL software that infringes patents on regions that enforce patents on software.
This statement is wrong and false. Please consult legal and get corrected.
Simo.
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 09:04 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 13:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
moreover GPL license also requires a written non-limiting patent grant or we can't include GPL software that infringes patents on regions that enforce patents on software.
This statement is wrong and false. Please consult legal and get corrected.
From GPLv2:
"If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
~spot
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 09:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 09:04 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 13:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
moreover GPL license also requires a written non-limiting patent grant or we can't include GPL software that infringes patents on regions that enforce patents on software.
This statement is wrong and false. Please consult legal and get corrected.
From GPLv2:
"If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
I know this very well, but the phrase I cited is not correct. We probably have tons of GPL software that infringes on tons of patents, we simply don't know. And we don't "require a written non-limiting patent grant" for it. We need something like that only for software that "knowingly" infringes on specific patent where the patent holder "denied" explicitly consent to distribution and we think they are right.
I know the specific MP3 case "probably" qualify, but I found the phrase by itself is completely misleading.
Moreover if we were certain a patent had verifiable prior art, or we considered it invalid (in the sense we were reasonably certain it wouldn't stand in court) or we were reasonably certain our code does not infringe because works around it, then we would *not* need again any written permission, no matter what the patent holder say or require.
Finally GPL is vague and today we should start specifying if it is GPLv2 or GPLv3 as they have slightly different behaviors toward patents.
In summary, I would like for Rahul to be more careful with wording when it comes to legal matters, or to state the case precisely. Generic statements like his are just confusing for people that is not versed in law and may not understand exactly the boundaries of the statement.
Simo.
Simo.
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 09:54 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
I know the specific MP3 case "probably" qualify, but I found the phrase by itself is completely misleading.
To meet the criteria, we need to either feel certain that the code utilizes patents without permission, or to be told by the patent holder that a license is necessary to implement patents.
In the case of MP3, both criteria have been met.
~spot
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:47 +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
What about US?
The Fraunhofer/Thomson patents have not expired in the US. They are not willing to give us an unrestricted patent grant.
US Patent 5559834 expires September 24, 2013 US Patent 4942607 expires February 3, 2008 US Patent 5812672 expires September 2, 2015 US Patent 5579430 expires November 26, 2013 US Patent 5321729 expires June 24, 2011 US Patent 5706309 expires January 6, 2015 US Patent 5227990 expires July 13, 2010 US Patent 4821260 expires December 16, 2007 US Patent 5214742 expires May 25, 2010 US Patent 6185539 expires February 6, 2018 US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016 US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016 US Patent 5701346 expires February 2, 2015 US Patent 6009399 expires April 16, 2017 US Patent 5384811 expires January 24, 2012 US Patent 5736943 expires April 7, 2015 US Patent 5742735 expires April 21, 2015 US Patent 5455833 expires October 3, 2012
In addition, Alcatel-Lucent holds patents which may relate to MP3 and MPEG encoding. This is still pending appeal (Alcatel-Lucent v Microsoft). It is not clear whether they will give out an unstricted patent grant.
US Patent 5341457 expires Aug 20, 2013. US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023.
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:47 +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
What about US?
The Fraunhofer/Thomson patents have not expired in the US. They are not willing to give us an unrestricted patent grant.
US Patent 5559834 expires September 24, 2013 US Patent 4942607 expires February 3, 2008 US Patent 5812672 expires September 2, 2015 US Patent 5579430 expires November 26, 2013 US Patent 5321729 expires June 24, 2011 US Patent 5706309 expires January 6, 2015 US Patent 5227990 expires July 13, 2010 US Patent 4821260 expires December 16, 2007 US Patent 5214742 expires May 25, 2010 US Patent 6185539 expires February 6, 2018 US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016 US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016 US Patent 5701346 expires February 2, 2015 US Patent 6009399 expires April 16, 2017 US Patent 5384811 expires January 24, 2012 US Patent 5736943 expires April 7, 2015 US Patent 5742735 expires April 21, 2015 US Patent 5455833 expires October 3, 2012
So, in Fedora 28 we may be able to include MP3 support? :)
In addition, Alcatel-Lucent holds patents which may relate to MP3 and MPEG encoding. This is still pending appeal (Alcatel-Lucent v Microsoft). It is not clear whether they will give out an unstricted patent grant.
US Patent 5341457 expires Aug 20, 2013. US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023.
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:47 +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
What about US?
The Fraunhofer/Thomson patents have not expired in the US. They are not willing to give us an unrestricted patent grant.
US Patent 5559834 expires September 24, 2013 US Patent 4942607 expires February 3, 2008 US Patent 5812672 expires September 2, 2015 US Patent 5579430 expires November 26, 2013 US Patent 5321729 expires June 24, 2011 US Patent 5706309 expires January 6, 2015 US Patent 5227990 expires July 13, 2010 US Patent 4821260 expires December 16, 2007 US Patent 5214742 expires May 25, 2010 US Patent 6185539 expires February 6, 2018 US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016 US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016 US Patent 5701346 expires February 2, 2015 US Patent 6009399 expires April 16, 2017 US Patent 5384811 expires January 24, 2012 US Patent 5736943 expires April 7, 2015 US Patent 5742735 expires April 21, 2015 US Patent 5455833 expires October 3, 2012
So, in Fedora 28 we may be able to include MP3 support? :)
Actually, if we don't slip schedules too badly, (2018-2007)*2+8= Fedora 30. Or, I suppose, 29, if it's Feb 6 2018. :)
Jon Ciesla wrote:
So, in Fedora 28 we may be able to include MP3 support? :)
Actually, if we don't slip schedules too badly, (2018-2007)*2+8= Fedora 30. Or, I suppose, 29, if it's Feb 6 2018. :)
Doh, my internal clock is already set to 2008 :)
I thought so, if you were a bit less far off I'd have said you needed to yum update tzdata. :)
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Briefly speaking from the above notes we may find the following:
- Looks like Ogg "violates" patents as well as mp3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Licensing
Linus
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 22:25 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Briefly speaking from the above notes we may find the following:
- Looks like Ogg "violates" patents as well as mp3.
To my reading this section claims quite the contrary.
Let's not witch hunt on programs that can or may, or could violate patents. Unless we know for sure a program implements a very specific patent covered method then only if there is a specific patent holder that comes out and claims a specific patent is violated by a specific program/library we should care.
Anything else is just going to be a mainly waste of time IMO.
Simo.
-
Harald Hoyer -
Jon Ciesla -
Linus Walleij -
Peter Lemenkov -
Rahul Sundaram -
Simo Sorce -
Tom Callaway