[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Red Hat's "Cowardice" against Software Patents

Dnia 05-04-2006, śro o godzinie 13:05 -0400, Horst von Brand napisał(a):
> How do you know it hasn't been tried? In any case, what info is out there
> on the matter clearly indicates the people in control of the license will
> /never/ agree on an open-source version, so the point is more than moot.
It doesn't have to be open-source, it simply has to be legal. Fluendo
with gstreamer and Totem are perfectly legal (they paid Thomson the
money), the only problem are GPL apps linked to gstreamer (linking at
run-time with proprietary things, even via a stack of LGPL modules,
violates the GPL). It IS the matter of distribution then. You can make a
separate yum repository for perfectly legal MP3 gstreamer plugin
(Fluendo will give you a licence for free and it's their responsibility
for it to be legal - you're not making Fedora more prosecution-prone),
only it has to conflict with Rhythmbox for example. It's still possible
to make a program ESR was writing about (popup asks if you want to
enable this plugin repository in your yum.repos.d/file, then tells you
"in order to play this file you have to install XXX, but this will
remove YYY from your system" - yum can tell it to you).

The only problem I could see here would be some dependency specific to
Fedora that would force the presence of some GPL-licensed and
gst-enabled program in my system. This could probably be fixed somehow.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: To jest część listu podpisana cyfrowo

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]