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

Re: fmf-frequently missed features and some general thoughts...



Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 05.54 schrieb Gerald Henriksen:
> On 02 Aug 2003 03:46:37 +0200, you wrote:
> 
> >> Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't
> >> apply in France.
> >
> >so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you
> >right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless
> 
> Patent laws vary from country to country,  and the tolerance for risk
> can also vary from company to company.
> 
> However, as has been discussed previously on various Red Hat lists the
> problem with the mp3 decoders is that they are incorrectly licensed.
> 
> Basically what it comes down to is that while the mp3 decoders for
> Linux have been released under the GPL, the restrictions the patent
> holder has placed on mp3 violate the GPL, hence the mp3 decoders are
> in a legally questionable position.  The patent holder has stated that
> they are not interested in collecting royalties from software decoders
> distributed with an OS like Linux or Windows (so in theory a legal
> open source mp3 decoder could be created).  However, if that software
> decoder is then used within a hardware product royalties would be
> payable, and it is this further restriction that violates the GPL.
> 
> >suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have
> >payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!).
> 
> I doubt Suse has payed for it, but instead they have chosen to ignore
> the fact that the software licence is a problem.
> 
> >despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to
> >enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the
> >net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
> 
> Perhaps if there was a decoder under a valid licence Red Hat could
> look at it again, but until then it won't happen.
> 
> Suse and Mandrake may be willing to look the other way, but Red Hat
> has (rightfully) chosen to take the high road and not include software
> that does not have a valid licence.
> 
> >> > 4. rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
> >> > installed in browsers
> >> 
> >> Check the license of RHL :
> >> http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
> >> 
> >> It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit.
> >> To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download
> >> java, flash...). 
> >
> >so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin?
> >because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are
> >interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be
> >the same for vendors.
> 
> It can vary.  The big problem from Red Hat's perspective though is
> that they are not open source and Red Hat's postition is that anything
> included in Red Hat Linux must be open source (which is good both from
> a purity point of view as well as the fact that Red Hat can then if
> necessary fix any bugs themselves).  Java, Flash, NVIDIA drivers, etc
> are binary only and so cannot be included with Red Hat Linux.

but certainly not from a business point of view, because it gives other
vendors (who are not that strict) a competative advantage, and in the
long run, it likely will hurt their business!
again, i find this position shortsighted and unnecessarily
selfrestricted, but it seems that the only viable option is to accept
it.  

> --
> Rhl-list mailing list
> Rhl-list redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-list




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