[linux-elitists] MP3 patents

M. Drew Streib dtype@dtype.org
Sun Sep 2 11:33:58 PDT 2001

On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 11:25:50AM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > Free player don't need a license, to my knowledge, or rather, they are
> > granted a free license.

I'd appreciate a link to this license grant. One does not need to show
a pattern of enforcement in patents, unlike copyright or trademark
infringements, so an implied license or lack of enforcement up to this
point probably doesn't do us much good.

> > Most people don't seem to bother, and it's generally thought that their
> > decoding patents are much less enforceable than their encoding ones.

My understanding is quite different. This is particularly relevant if
you would be the named defendant in such a case.

> OK, I'm going to include an MP3 player in the LNX-BBC downloadable
> packages, then, but I'm going to have a README which flames software
> patents and promotes Ogg.
> Speak now or forever hold your peace!

I wonder about the need for such a thing on an admin disk. I wouldn't go
around picking fights if you included this, but would express a strong
preference to not have it on the disk.

Damn, I'm not used to finding myself on the left side of a free software
argument on linux-elitists.


M. Drew Streib <dtype@dtype.org> | http://dtype.org/
FSG <dtype@freestandards.org>    | Linux International <dtype@li.org>
freedb <dtype@freedb.org>        | SourceForge <dtype@sourceforge.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20010902/0825eaa5/attachment.pgp 

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list