removing mp3 code

[Marcus Meissner]

Hi,

Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee free anymore,
according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson MultiMedia pages.

So we probably should remove the msacm mp3 decoder we include. :(

Ciao, Marcus

[Michael Stefaniuc]

Hello,

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee free anymore,
> according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson MultiMedia pages.
>
> So we probably should remove the msacm mp3 decoder we include. :(

I would wait with that, because every day you get an other information.
Have a look at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/

bye
    michael

[Marcus Meissner]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:03:26AM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee free anymore,
> > according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson MultiMedia pages.
> >
> > So we probably should remove the msacm mp3 decoder we include. :(
>
> I would wait with that, because every day you get an other information.
> Have a look at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/

Hmm, ok.

Ignore my last mail then ;)

Ciao, Marcus

[Uwe Bonnes]

> > > > > "Marcus" == Marcus Meissner  writes:

Marcus> Hi, Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee
    Marcus> free anymore, according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson
    Marcus> MultiMedia pages.

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ (german) tell about a
Thompson Statement that free decoders are still royalty free. The Thompson
statement in in english.

Bye

[Eric Pouech]

Uwe Bonnes a écrit :
> > > > > > "Marcus" == Marcus Meissner  writes:
> Marcus> Hi, Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not royaltee
> Marcus> free anymore, according to the slashdot thread and the Thomson
> Marcus> MultiMedia pages.
>
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ (german) tell about a
> Thompson Statement that free decoders are still royalty free. The Thompson
> statement in in english.

well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial
package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO.
comments ?
A+

[Alexandre Julliard]

Eric Pouech  writes:
> well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial
> package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO.
> comments ?

I don't think it belongs in LICENSE, but I do think the mp3 code
should be disabled by default, with a configure option to enable
it. This way people who don't know about the issue don't get in
trouble, and those who enable it are expected to know what they are
doing.

[Eric Pouech]

Alexandre Julliard a écrit :
> Eric Pouech  writes:
> > well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial
> > package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO.
> > comments ?
>
> I don't think it belongs in LICENSE, but I do think the mp3 code
> should be disabled by default, with a configure option to enable
> it. This way people who don't know about the issue don't get in
> trouble, and those who enable it are expected to know what they are
> doing.

ok, I'll see to
1/ add a autoconf option to enable/disable compiling a given DLL (this
may also be useful for mingw configuration for example)
2/ add a note in the dlls/msacm/winemp3 directory

A+

[Sylvain Petreolle]

--- Eric Pouech  a écrit : > Uwe Bonnes a
écrit :
no, there is misunderstanding.
see http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/29/1633205&tid=17
no fee is needed for the use of free players.
only vendors needs to pay a fee.
> > > > > > > "Marcus" == Marcus Meissner  writes:
> > Marcus> Hi, Apparently distributing even mp3 decoders is not
>
> royaltee
> > Marcus> free anymore, according to the slashdot thread and the
>
> Thomson
> > Marcus> MultiMedia pages.
> >
> > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-29.08.02-000/ (german) tell
>
> about a
> > Thompson Statement that free decoders are still royalty free. The
>
> Thompson
> > statement in in english.
>
> well, perhaps we should add a note in case someone makes a commercial
> package out of wine... LICENSE file should be the right place IMO.
> comments ?
> A+

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

[Eric Pouech]

Sylvain Petreolle a écrit :
> --- Eric Pouech  a écrit : > Uwe Bonnes a
> écrit :
> no, there is misunderstanding.
> see http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/29/1633205&tid=17
> no fee is needed for the use of free players.
> only vendors needs to pay a fee.

my point is:
- a company X has an audio player for Win32
- company X ports its app to Wine using the wine source, and it's mp3
player and makes a closed package of it
- it'll have to pay for the license
so I think this has to be documented somehow

A+

[Shachar Shemesh]

Eric Pouech wrote:
> my point is:
> - a company X has an audio player for Win32
> - company X ports its app to Wine using the wine source, and it's mp3
>
> player and makes a closed package of it
> - it'll have to pay for the license
>
> so I think this has to be documented somehow
>
> A+

Isn't it always the case with Open Source software that, when you want 
to repackage a piece of code, patent licensing requirements are yours to 
figure out and comply? Why is this case any different than the Unisys 
LZW patent, when free (bear) implementations were free of charge?

Shachar

[Igor Izyumin]

On Saturday 31 August 2002 02:02 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Eric Pouech wrote:
> > my point is:
> > - a company X has an audio player for Win32
> > - company X ports its app to Wine using the wine source, and it's mp3
> >
> > player and makes a closed package of it
> > - it'll have to pay for the license
> >
> > so I think this has to be documented somehow
> >
> > A+
>
> Isn't it always the case with Open Source software that, when you want
> to repackage a piece of code, patent licensing requirements are yours to
> figure out and comply? Why is this case any different than the Unisys
> LZW patent, when free (bear) implementations were free of charge?

Well, yes, but it should probably be disclosed somewhere in the readme and/or 
the license file.  You don't want people to encounter this after they've 
ported and released stuff, right?  Wine is not legally OBLIGATED to find 
patent dependencies, but I think that developers should make an effort to 
document known/possible patent issues.  It's not that hard, just put a notice 
in the documentation somewhere.

Note: I am not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion and not legal advice.