drago01 drago01 at
Wed May 1 06:15:30 UTC 2013

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:40 AM, drago01 <drago01 at> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d at> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:20:30 -0400
>>>> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at> 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.
>>> 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"?

Fluendo S.A  i.e the company.

>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.

You are mixing copyright and patent law. If you download the code and
compile it you don't have a license.
The binaries shipped by fluendo are proper licensed though.

> Nero licensing is another story, I'll admit. The restrictions on
> MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 use, declared at
>, 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.

Google Chrome? Adobe Flash? Android ? ....

More information about the devel mailing list