2:48 p.m.
can anyone tell me how to get mp3 support in Fedora since RH did away with
built in support...
I have tried different libraries and such, but just want to get it working
and forget about it...;)
thanks,
--evan hazlett
4:09 p.m.
Hazlett, Evan [EAC/FF] wrote:
can anyone tell me how to get mp3 support in Fedora since RH did away
with built in support...
I have tried different libraries and such, but just want to get it
working and forget about it...;)
Lot's of ways to do that, one way...
go here: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraHOWTO
And get
http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/0.95/i386/RPMS.stable/apt-0.5.5cn...
And get
http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/synaptic-0.43....
After you install them, in /etc/apt/sources.list, put the following:
### Beginning of /etc/apt/sources.list
# Fedora Core
rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 os updates
rpm-src http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 os updates
# Fedora Extras (formerly "Fedora Linux")
rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing
rpm-src http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing
# Fedora Core 1 Test 3 updates will be distributed through Rawhide
rpm http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/apt redhat/rawhide/en/i386 os
#failover rawhide repo
#rpm http://ftp.silug.org/pub/apt redhat/rawhide/en/i386/redhat os
# auxiliary source of packages with questionable licenses -- use at your own risk
rpm http://rpm.livna.org/ fedora/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing
rpm-src http://rpm.livna.org/ fedora/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing
#### End of Apt Sources.
Then (as root) run "synaptic"
You will like it.
-Ben.
4:29 p.m.
can anyone tell me how to get mp3 support in Fedora since RH did away
with
built in support...
I have tried different libraries and such, but just want to get it working
and forget about it...;)
*directing the question towards those who are creating the xmms rpms*
Why exactly is this still an issue? Since Fedora is not a Red Hat
product, only a Red Hat sponsered project, these copyright issues
shouldn't concern them anymore.
4:39 p.m.
Once upon a time, Ricky Boone <whiplash(a)planetfurry.com> said:
Why exactly is this still an issue? Since Fedora is not a Red Hat
product, only a Red Hat sponsered project, these copyright issues
shouldn't concern them anymore.
It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement issue, and
anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red
Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors
could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software
was included in the distribution.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
5:02 p.m.
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 22:39, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Ricky Boone <whiplash(a)planetfurry.com> said:
> Why exactly is this still an issue? Since Fedora is not a Red Hat
> product, only a Red Hat sponsered project, these copyright issues
> shouldn't concern them anymore.
It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement issue, and
anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red
Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors
could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software
was included in the distribution.
Aa I understand it, the only time when distributing MP3 codecs is an
issue is if they are part of a product that is being sold, if, like XMMS
and winamp the product is distributed for free then there is no problem
with including MP3 functionality, so while there is some ambiguity
whether Red Hat could include MP3 players Fedora shouldn't have a
problem, I could be wrong though
--
James
jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.
5:18 p.m.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, James Keasley wrote:
> It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement
issue, and
> anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red
> Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors
> could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software
> was included in the distribution.
Aa I understand it, the only time when distributing MP3 codecs is an
issue is if they are part of a product that is being sold, if, like XMMS
and winamp the product is distributed for free then there is no problem
with including MP3 functionality, so while there is some ambiguity
whether Red Hat could include MP3 players Fedora shouldn't have a
problem, I could be wrong though
You are wrong. Very wrong. This particular issue has been
discussed to death for 2 years now and every possible thing that
could be said about it has been said about 10000 times. Nobody
has yet to introduce a new idea into the entire concept of the
MP3 discussion for about 23 months. All old news.
Aside from the patent issue, there is the fact that all MP3
software currently in existance is licensed under the GPL
license, which explicitly forbids usage of patents unless the
patent owner has granted royalty free unlimited license to use
the software in GPL code, and that hasn't happened.
Go search google and read any one of about 40 mailing lists
archives for previous discussions on this topic. If you collect
every single discussion together and begin reading it, every
single message of every single thread, you will probably take
about 2 years to read it all more or less.
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which
if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
6:10 p.m.
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which
if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere
in the world... :)
(sorry this has probably also been asked before, just want to know...)
Erik
2:53 a.m.
Am Sa, den 25.10.2003 schrieb Erik Englund um 01:10:
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which
> if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
>
what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere
in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And
this is
why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff.
(it being not GPL compatible left aside)
--
Niels Weber <nath(a)snafu.de>
3:08 a.m.
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this
is
why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff.
(it being not GPL compatible left aside)
is this a fedora list? seems to be a lot of off topic stuff here. I
subscribed to this list to keep up to date on fedora stuff, not general
linux stuff. Maybe you folks should subscribe to your local linux user
group list...
--ras
4:03 a.m.
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 08:53, Niels Weber wrote:
Am Sa, den 25.10.2003 schrieb Erik Englund um 01:10:
> On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> > MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which
> > if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
> >
> what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere
> in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is
why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff.
(it being not GPL compatible left aside)
The GPL compatibility problem is not kept aside. In fact, as there is no
patent on MP3 in Europe, there is no problem including MP3 support in
any GPL software in Europe.
--
Julien Olivier <julo(a)altern.org>
6:34 a.m.
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 09:53, Niels Weber wrote:
Am Sa, den 25.10.2003 schrieb Erik Englund um 01:10:
> On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> > MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which
> > if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
> >
> what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere
> in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is
why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff.
(it being not GPL compatible left aside)
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European
server that US people are not aloud to download? I mean, how many US
corporations aren't breaking US human right laws in third world
countries that is not a crime in that countries, no one can do anything
about that, so therefore it should be no problem with a special non us
version of fedora, or?
6:58 a.m.
On Saturday 25 October 2003 12:34, Erik Englund wrote:
> This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And
this is
> why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff.
> (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European
server that US people are not aloud to download? I mean, how many US
It doesn't really make a great deal of difference so long as rpms are readily
available for xmms MPG3 and mplayer (they are, eg, freshrpms.net), its just a
small post-install action that needs to be done (along with killing artsd,
Noatun and Kaboodle)... Redhat don't have to get involved with that at all.
Looking at the way Redhat stepped up with SCO, I feel happier they are
Caesar's Wife on the subject and are acting conservatively to protect their
cashpile for Doing Good In The World.
If you feel really worked up about it, consider making a Fedora++ or
MetaFedora, which can include the Forbidden Fruits, maybe you can distribute
it as an rsync patch to the official redhat ISO, that way you won't have
trouble with the Redhat TM artwork and stuff. In fact if you consider this
you should get together with the text-to-speech guy, it can include his
patched kernel... in fact everything that Redhat reject but somebody loves
could end up in it, a kind of consolation distro.
-Andy
10:42 a.m.
New subject: mozilla 1.5
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 16:33, dragoran wrote:
will mozilla 1.5 be included in fedora core 1 ?
No. Discussed in this list's archives at
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
3:42 p.m.
New subject: mozilla 1.5
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, nosp wrote:
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 16:33, dragoran wrote:
> will mozilla 1.5 be included in fedora core 1 ?
No. Discussed in this list's archives at
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
mozilla.org has rpms for fedora 0.95. You can just install them using
yum..
I have the following in my /etc/yum.conf file
>>>>>>
[mozilla-seamonkey]
name=Mozilla SeaMonkey Releases
baseurl=http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/rele...
>>>>>>
One issue that came up is epiphany - I just took the spec file from
the rawhide epiphany.srpm and built epiphany-1.0.4-1.i386.rpm with the
latest epiphany tar file. I wanted to try the html editor in the
latest mozilla - but use epiphany for borwser (was a galeon user) -
hence this approach.
Satish
12:33 a.m.
New subject: mozilla 1.5
Satish Balay wrote:
[mozilla-seamonkey]
name=Mozilla SeaMonkey Releases
baseurl=http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/rele...
One issue that came up is epiphany - I just took the spec file from
the rawhide epiphany.srpm and built epiphany-1.0.4-1.i386.rpm with the
latest epiphany tar file. I wanted to try the html editor in the
latest mozilla - but use epiphany for borwser (was a galeon user) -
hence this approach.
Satish
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
No Mozilla-psm rpm is such directory....that was present on RC1 rpm's.
How do I manage it???
Tnx
Antonio
--
==============================================
Written with Mozilla 1.5RC1 on Linux RedHat 9
==============================================
12:56 a.m.
New subject: mozilla 1.5
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Antonio Montagnani wrote:
No Mozilla-psm rpm is such directory....that was present on RC1
rpm's.
How do I manage it???
Don't know what error you've encountred. I'd sugest 'yum upgrade' or
'yum remove mozilla-psm; yum upgrade'
Looks like mozilla-psm stuff is rolled into mozilla package in both
variants (rawhide & mozilla.org)
Satish
9:59 a.m.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Erik Englund wrote:
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a
European
server that US people are not aloud to download?
Are you volunteering ?
Is anybody else volunteering ?
I think you've got your answer ;)
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
12:54 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 16:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Erik Englund wrote:
> exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European
> server that US people are not aloud to download?
Are you volunteering ?
Is anybody else volunteering ?
I think you've got your answer ;)
hehe, sure i could if i had ANY idea of how to do it :p
1:32 p.m.
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 17:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Erik Englund wrote:
> exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European
> server that US people are not aloud to download?
Are you volunteering ?
Is anybody else volunteering ?
I think you've got your answer ;)
One can setup "fedora NON-US" addon
or whatever you name it... will/can
save a lot of space we don't want see wasted, right? This is in case
the source can't be distributed, if only the binary can't there can be
--define nonus or whatever option in the source rpm (correct me if I'm
wrong).
Currently I do recompile some packages and can easy find others from
freshrpms and other places...
--
Regards,
Doncho N. Gunchev
9:32 a.m.
On Oct 25, 2003, Niels Weber <nath(a)snafu.de> wrote:
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this
is
why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff.
(it being not GPL compatible left aside)
IANAL, but the GPL seems to allow geographical limitations to the
distribution of a package, See 8. in the GNU GPL for the details.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer
4:10 a.m.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Niels Weber wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> > MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which
> > if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
> >
> what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere
> in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is
why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff.
(it being not GPL compatible left aside)
And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single
time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA
corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America
worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists,
and an US IP attorney for further details.
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
9:47 a.m.
On Sunday 26 October 2003 02:10 am, Mike A. Harris wrote:
And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single
time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA
corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America
worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists,
and an US IP attorney for further details.
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there
wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on
the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not
added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues
related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
Can we please stop bashing the USA!
10:01 a.m.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Chris wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 02:10 am, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single
> time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA
> corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America
> worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists,
> and an US IP attorney for further details.
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there
wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on
the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not
added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues
related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
It's a software patent issue that currently cannot be enforced in Europe afaik.
Besides we wouldn't be having the whole patenting issue now if it wasn't
for the US. The guidelines used by the European commission were actually
designed by the Business Software Alliance and mostly lobbied by several
US interest groups.
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
10:23 a.m.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Dag Wieers wrote:
> eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in
Germany there
> wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
>
> I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on
> the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not
> added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues
> related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
It's a software patent issue that currently cannot be enforced
in Europe afaik.
Besides we wouldn't be having the whole patenting issue now if
it wasn't for the US. The guidelines used by the European
commission were actually designed by the Business Software
Alliance and mostly lobbied by several US interest groups.
Regardless of the kind opinions of all of the IANAL (I am not a
lawyer) people out there who would like to interpret the laws of
every country out there and how those laws apply to them, their
country, Red Hat, or someone else, Red Hat does have a team of
legal council who is very aware of the laws of the United States,
Europe and other countries in the world.
Red Hat legal council is very capable of knowing how to determine
what is legal and what is not, and what Red Hat can legally ship
in which if any countries in the world, and that includes MP3
support.
The status quo of MP3 support in the current distribution as
distributed throughout the world, as decided by this legal team,
who _ARE_ highly skilled professional lawyers, should say
something.
I'm kindof surprised how so many people who are NOT lawyers seem
to think they know more about worldwide intellectual property law
than a team of REAL lawyers.
Anyway, once again, the whole MP3 discussion leads to
pointlessness because the opinions of 10's, 100's or 1000's of
non-lawyers aren't going to change the fact that lawyers have
decided what is and isn't legal to ship wherever, and that
decision wont likely change until laws change.
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
4:44 p.m.
I'm kindof surprised how so many people who are NOT lawyers seem
to think they know more about worldwide intellectual property law
than a team of REAL lawyers.
If it is at all questionable then it should be excluded from the
distribution. Everyone wants to take a bite out of Linux. It can't
succeed if it is encumbered by patents. I applaud Red Hat for making
the correct decision of distancing itself from litigation.
Moreover....if you are choosing a Linux distribution that includes MP3
support LOOK OUT. Even an unsuccessful lawsuit is costly. I doubt if
your Linux distribution would survive a successful one.
Besides all this OGG is every bit as good. Who cares if it isn't the
first thing on the market. It's open and free. It's the right choice.
Again...way to go Red Hat...
-Chris
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of
all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily
defeat us." - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
4:50 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 22:44, Chris Spencer wrote:
> I'm kindof surprised how so many people who are NOT lawyers
seem
> to think they know more about worldwide intellectual property law
> than a team of REAL lawyers.
If it is at all questionable then it should be excluded from the
distribution. Everyone wants to take a bite out of Linux. It can't
succeed if it is encumbered by patents. I applaud Red Hat for making
the correct decision of distancing itself from litigation.
Moreover....if you are choosing a Linux distribution that includes MP3
support LOOK OUT. Even an unsuccessful lawsuit is costly. I doubt if
your Linux distribution would survive a successful one.
OK, you're right. You have to respect the law anyway. So, if the law
says that's illegal to distribute MP3 programs, Redhat is right not to
distribute them.
Besides all this OGG is every bit as good. Who cares if it isn't
the
first thing on the market. It's open and free. It's the right choice.
The only problem with OGG is that it's not supported by most mobile
music players. I have one of them and it only supports MP3 and WMA. So,
I have to rip my CDs in MP3 so that I can listen to them on my mobile
music player...
Again...way to go Red Hat...
-Chris
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of
all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily
defeat us." - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
Julien Olivier <julo(a)altern.org>
10:16 a.m.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Chris wrote:
> And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single
> time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA
> corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America
> worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists,
> and an US IP attorney for further details.
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there
wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on
the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not
added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues
related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
Can we please stop bashing the USA!
There are MULTIPLE reasons why MP3 support are not present in the
distribution. One is the patent issue, another is the GPL
disallowing patented bits to be in GPL code. There are other
issues, and I don't think they need to be rehashed and
rediscussed every 10 days for eternity. The discussions are not
going to introduce any new arguments from anyone out there in any
country ever. The situation is unlikely to change ever. Red
Hat's legal status in the matter isn't going to change.
All these discussions prove is that history repeats itself like a
broken record.
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
10:54 a.m.
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 15:47, Chris wrote:
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other
discussions on
the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not
added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues
related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
I vote this question just gets answered something like:
- that's a FAQ
- here's the reason: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html
- consider open audio formats like OGG, they sound better
11:18 a.m.
On Sunday 26 October 2003 08:54 am, nosp wrote:
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 15:47, Chris wrote:
> I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions
> on the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support
> is not added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing
> issues related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
I vote this question just gets answered something like:
- that's a FAQ
- here's the reason: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html
- consider open audio formats like OGG, they sound better
"Due to patent licensing and conflicts between such patent licenses and the
licenses of application source code..."
Why is this discussion continuing? Did I not say it was a licensing issue? I
don't see DMCA or USA in that link at all. All I see is "licenses, licenses,
licenses" just like I stated in my original message.
Please, end of discussion. And please, stop bashing USA.
11:31 a.m.
On Sunday 26 October 2003 09:27 am, nosp wrote:
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 17:18, Chris wrote:
> And please, stop bashing USA.
I wasn't. Not sure how that's relevant to my post, given you said you
hadn't read the discussions and I provided the main RH announcement.
Sorry, that reply was not meant for you specifically. I was replying to the
community of people who like to bash the USA.
I agree, it should be added to the FAQ, thanks!
12:56 p.m.
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany
there
wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
The stupidness begins with the 30+ e-mails regarding an issue that
shouldn't be on this list in the first place.
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other
discussions on
the topic
Welcome to the list. Please read the 500 other discussions. This is a
fedora related list. Not a general linux list.
Can we please stop bashing the USA!
Can we please keep this list on topic.
--ras
5:20 p.m.
> It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement
issue,...
Sorry, my mistake.
> and
> anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red
> Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors
> could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software
> was included in the distribution.
If that's the case, why aren't other distributions, such as Mandrake,
SuSE, etc., removing MP3 support like RH is? It looks like this is a moot
issue, but it seems that there really isn't much concern from the rest of
the Linux community concerning MP3 patent infrigement on this level.
Aa I understand it, the only time when distributing MP3 codecs is an
issue is if they are part of a product that is being sold, if, like XMMS
and winamp the product is distributed for free then there is no problem
with including MP3 functionality, so while there is some ambiguity
whether Red Hat could include MP3 players Fedora shouldn't have a
problem, I could be wrong though
That was my understanding of it.
My biggest beef with it is why are other distro's "getting away with it",
while if I choose to stick with RH or Fedora, I have to go out and bypass
their stock RPM's?
5:38 p.m.
Ricky Boone said:
>> It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement
issue,...
Sorry, my mistake.
>> and
>> anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means
>> Red
>> Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors
>> could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software
>> was included in the distribution.
If that's the case, why aren't other distributions, such as Mandrake,
SuSE, etc., removing MP3 support like RH is? It looks like this is a moot
issue, but it seems that there really isn't much concern from the rest of
the Linux community concerning MP3 patent infrigement on this level.
Sigh. "Everyone else does it" is not a valid legal defense. If you use
the things in the MP3 patent for commercial use, you are required to pay
royalties. The GPL doesn't allow restrictions on use via patents. All
"GPL" MP3 software is not GPL compatible.
Next argument, "why doesn't Red Hat write a non-GPL player". Because Red
Hat believes in open source and Ogg is already there.
Next argument, "but that doesn't work for my MP3 player". Sorry. Feel
free to write your own MP3 software, under a license that can co-exist
with the patent, without using any of the existing GPL code. It's still
not going to get shipped by Red Hat.
I'm sure there are some arguments that I forgot... as someone else said,
I'm sure they are already in the archives.
--
William Hooper
6:01 p.m.
Sigh. "Everyone else does it" is not a valid legal
defense.
That's not what I meant. I wasn't meaning that since everyone else has
support that Fedora should also based completely on that fact. My point
was that there are other distro's that -are- selling their products with
MP3 support, yet Fedora does not, and it's freely available... not sold.
If you use
the things in the MP3 patent for commercial use, you are required to pay
royalties. The GPL doesn't allow restrictions on use via patents. All
"GPL" MP3 software is not GPL compatible.
But Fedora is not a commercial product... it isn't "revenue-generating",
as the company holding these patents likes to put it. Why should they
expect for a company, or developer, to pay royalty licensing fees for a
product that isn't sold?
I'm sorry, let's just drop this, I don't mean to drag this into the ground
any further, it's just a problem that seems to cause people to
consistantly ask for help on. Perhaps there should be a notice on the
Fedora site about this, howtos or links to howtos and rpms, etc... (that
is if there isn't one already...)
7:57 p.m.
My biggest beef with it is why are other distro's "getting
away with it",
while if I choose to stick with RH or Fedora, I have to go out and bypass
their stock RPM's?
Getting away with it and not yet getting sued for retroactive royalties,
patent infringement, or GPL violations are not the same thing.
Reading the news one can see the plaintiff goes after the deepest
pockets, Red Hat would like not to be the test case for any such
business. And there is principle involved. Use Ogg.
Or if you must use mp3, install it yourself. Last I checked folks had to
go get plug-ins and readers and such from third parties all the time.
--jeremy
7496
days inactive
7500
days old
36 comments
23 participants
participants (23)
-
Alexandre Oliva -
Andy Green -
Antonio Montagnani -
Ben Russo -
Chris -
Chris Adams -
Chris Spencer -
Dag Wieers -
Doncho N. Gunchev -
dragoran -
Erik Englund -
Hazlett, Evan [EAC/FF] -
James Keasley -
Jeremy Hogan -
Jesse -
Julien Olivier -
Mike A. Harris -
Niels Weber -
nosp -
Ricky Boone -
Rik van Riel -
Satish Balay -
William Hooper