What are consequences of "merger necessitates removal of ...

[Justin Georgeson]

Thomas Dodd wrote:
> 
> 
> Mike A. Harris wrote:
> 
>> In other words, the GPL license on all MP3 software out there is
>> invalid, regardless of wether or not Red Hat would have a license to 
>> ship MP3 decoding technology.  Red Hat would have to either:
>>
>> 1) Convince the patent owner to permit unlimited unrestricted use 2) 
>> Pay the $50000 to license the patent, and then purchase or 3) Pay the 
>> $50000 to license the patent, and hire developers to 
> 
> 
> Missed a 4th possibility. One of the current players could relicense 
> their player. Perhaps a new license, that looks like the GPL except the 
> patent restriction. The negotiation for a license should allow for 
> non-commercial use and redistribution. Also clarify that "selling" a 
> collection of programs/source code is allowed, which is part of the 
> current MP3 problems.

wouldn't that still be incompatible with the GPL, meaning it would still 
not be shipped with RH/FC?


> The player could even be dual licensed like Mozilla/OpenOffice.org, 
> better still the MySQL way, so commercial code is possible, but such use 
> would require a seperate license for MP3 (and friends). That would 
> further help the patent holder guaranty revenue.
> 
> [Not that I agree with software patents at all. I personally don't 
> create MP3 files. If a decent portable/car player with OGG-vorbis 
> support shouw up I'll by one, but not until them. My only current use of 
> MPEG is DVD/DVB, where their is really no alternative (yet).]
>

The whole issue is getting a GPL compatible license to the patents, so 
that a truely GPL licensed player can be built on them. Both the player 
and the patent need to have GPL compatible licenses, otherwise they 
won't be shipped in RHEL/FC.