clarification: is "inactive" mp3 source code forbidden?

[Matthew Miller]

See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/214

I'm just looking for a quick clarification on whether it's our position that
mp3 falls under patented code we should avoid packaging even as source.

-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

[Tristan Santore]

On 01/10/12 20:40, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/214
>
>  I'm just looking for a quick clarification on whether it's our position that
>  mp3 falls under patented code we should avoid packaging even as source.
>  
A little research shows that there are a variety of patents involved
with this issue.
Some expire in 2015, others are 2017, but then again

*Patent number*: 5812672
*Filing date*: Dec 15, 1994
*Issue date*: Sep 22, 1998

it comes again down to, which date is used to decide when there is an
expiry.
It could be 2018.

So it will be a few years yet, before this non-sense stops.

But I am sure Tom and Richard will have better insights than me.


Regards,

Tristan

-- 
Tristan Santore BSc MBCS
TS4523-RIPE
Network and Infrastructure Operations
InterNexusConnect
Mobile [phone]
Tristan.Santore(a)internexusconnect.net

Former Thawte Notary
(Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down,
and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust)

For Fedora related issues, please email me at:
TSantore(a)fedoraproject.org

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:40:57PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/214
>  
>  I'm just looking for a quick clarification on whether it's our position that
>  mp3 falls under patented code we should avoid packaging even as source. 
(Double-clarification: not packaging the source into a binary RPM. Just
leaving the source, not built into the binary, as part of a source RPM.)


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

[Tristan Santore]

On 01/10/12 21:18, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:40:57PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/214
> >
> > I'm just looking for a quick clarification on whether it's our position that
> > mp3 falls under patented code we should avoid packaging even as source.
>  
>  (Double-clarification: not packaging the source into a binary RPM. Just
>  leaving the source, not built into the binary, as part of a source RPM.)
>  
>   
Again, I believe this is contributory infringement. Fedora cannot do
this. We cannot distribute compiled or not compiled packages with the
contents.

In fact, Tom has already clarified.

On 04/28/2012 10:40 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>  > What is the current situation with MP3 allowance in Fedora? I
> thought
>  > 2012 was the year when we could -at least- have not-patent-encumbered,
>  > free MP3 _decoding_. Can you please update us on the latest status? 
We'll
revisit decoding in late 2015, barring sanity in US patent law
spontaneously appearing (or the Mayan apocalypse rendering the issue
irrelevant).

~tom

I believe the sanity issue is, when a patent was filed or when it was
granted. Never mind the other patents surrounding the core patent.
Sanity is hard to achieve ;-p

Regards,

Tristan

-- 
Tristan Santore BSc MBCS
TS4523-RIPE
Network and Infrastructure Operations
InterNexusConnect
Mobile [phone]
Tristan.Santore(a)internexusconnect.net

Former Thawte Notary
(Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down,
and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust)

For Fedora related issues, please email me at:
TSantore(a)fedoraproject.org

[Lars Seipel]

On Monday 01 October 2012 15:40:57 Matthew Miller wrote:
>  See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/214
>  
>  I'm just looking for a quick clarification on whether it's our position that
>  mp3 falls under patented code we should avoid packaging even as source. 
Hi Matthew,

I'm pretty sure the MP3 related sources need to be removed from the source 
tarball. See the 'xine-lib' package (#205798) for precedent. AFAIK nothing 
changed since then. So yeah, might be a good idea to make this more obvious to 
packagers.

Lars

[Tom Callaway]

On 10/01/2012 03:40 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/214
>  
>  I'm just looking for a quick clarification on whether it's our position that
>  mp3 falls under patented code we should avoid packaging even as source. 
Yes. Implementations of mp3 encoders or decoders must not be distributed
in Fedora, even as source, until further notice is given.

~tom

==
Fedora Project