Discussion August 2002

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

24 participants
18 discussions

MP3 Issue
by Martyn Ranyard 03 Sep '02

03 Sep '02

As reported in slashdot recently ( http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/27/1626241.shtml?tid=155 ) and being discussed all over the place, I am writing to all three kind-of-appropriate lists hoping to get an educated guess on the following points : Thompson and Fraunhoffer have a patent (at least in the US) that covers the MP3 algorithm. Is it enforcable outside the US? Fraunhoffer are a German company - does Germany allow Software and Algorithm patents? Is anyone talking to them about Free Software and how it is unreasonable to expect Free Software creators to pay the royalty-free cost and an admin nightmare to pay the per-unit cost? Are they getting anywhere? PS, fsfe-law and discussion(a)fsfeurope.org - I am not subscribed to these lists, so please cc me in, or the FSFE-UK list. - Martyn Ranyard Free Software Advocate jabber - joran(a)amessage.de icq - 122500800 irc - Joran on oftc msn - ranyardm(a)hotmail.com e - ranyardm(a)lineone.net

3 2

GPL violation : help needed
by Jerome Alet 01 Sep '02

01 Sep '02

Hi, About the GNU GPL violation I revealed on this list some days ago : I've asked the University of California San Diego to stop infringing my copyrights on the JAXML Python module which I distribute under the GNU GPL, and which they use in their ENV software published under a non-free license. After several emails exchanged, they are still studying the problem but their initial plan is to not do anything. If you want to help, you can send them a *POLITE* email asking them to stop violating the GPL and my copyrights, explaining why this is bad in your opinion. More info, links and email addresses are on : http://www.librelogiciel.com/ If you send them a message, please also send me a CC. I've not setup a pre-filled web form because I think a few original messages are better than hundredths of the same one. Thanks in advance for your support, and please again BE POLITE. PS : Does any of you know if this is legal or not for me to publish the different email messages exchanged ? Currently they are not published on my site. Jerome Alet

4 6

wrt U of California violating the GPL...
by Jerome Alet 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

Hi, It seems that the University of California San Diego which violated the GPL has decided to finally stop using my JAXML software in newer releases of their ENV software. The 0.9.4 you can download from their website, published on August 29th, doesn't use my GPLed library anymore, so they still use their own non-free license. Older versions doesn't seem to be available for download anymore. I'm still not officially informed of this, I've just checked their website. However their website doesn't have a single word nor apologize about their passed illegal behaviour, and coming from a University I find this **VERY** impolite (I also work in an University). They violated the GPL and my rights for at least nine consecutive months, so I expected at least a word from them on this subject. They only tell users of previous versions "please replace it with the current version". Don't you find this "disturbing" ? Anyway thanks to ALL who helped to solve this case in a pacific way ! The GPL will not go to court this time :-( Thanks again to all. Jerome Alet

3 4

Lyx finally Free Software?
by Bernhard Reiter 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

It looks LyX could finally become a software which does not depend on a proprietory library anymore. It is not widely known yet, but there seems to be a LGPL version of xforms around: ftp://ncmir.ucsd.edu/pub/xforms/OpenSource/ Can someone confirm that Lyx runs with that and the licensing is okay?

1 0

Mp3 Licencing policy
by Henrion Benjamin 28 Aug '02

28 Aug '02

Hello, It's a long time that I was thinking to set up an action for alerting users that MP3 was not a free format. I have had mails with Don Marti, who owned burnallmp3s.org, but the domain seems to be bought by another company. It could be useful to built a website like "nomp3.org" to explain clearly to users why it's dangerous to use the MP3 format. It could be another opportunity to attract the attention on the problem of Swpat (I think Eurolinux should do something). Do you have ideas of actions to do? -- Benjamin Henrion <bh(a)udev.org> http://bh.udev.org

1 0

Re: is it a GPL violation or not ?
by Joerg Schilling 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

>From: list-fsf-eu-discussion(a)faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) >Jerome Alet <alet(a)librelogiciel.com> schrieb/wrote: >> During my first contact with them, some months ago, I already >> proposed them : >> 1 - Put their software under the GNU GPL : probably difficult. >... >> It seems there's another possibility : >> 4 - Put their software under a GPL compatible license : probably >> easier. >GPL-compatible means that the licence is either identical to or laxer >than the GPL. If it's possible to put the code under a laxer licence, >you can also use the GPL. >Actually, anyone can take a project with a laxer licence, and put his/ >her changes under the GPL. This is right, but GPL is incompatible with the BSD license. You are not allowed to remove the BSD license and to replace it with the GPL. 1) You are not allowed to remove the BSD copyright notice 2) BSD forces you to tell your users that you did incorporate code from a specific Author (the one who wrote the BSD'd code). 3) I doubt that the original Author would like to see his code published under a less free (in this case the GPL) license than he originally used. However, there is no problem to use *BSD licensed code from a GPLd project. Jörg EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling(a)fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix

2 1

is it a GPL violation or not ?
by Richard Stallman 26 Aug '02

26 Aug '02

It is a violation. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research and non-profit purposes, Because of that limitatin of purposes, the program is not even free software, let alone GPL-compatible. Please note that the term "BSD license" conceals significant variation. The original BSD license was free, but incompatible with the GPL. The revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL. It is best to avoid the term "BSD license" to avoid risk of confusion.

4 5

[jerome: Re: is it a GPL violation or not ?]
by Jerome Alet 26 Aug '02

26 Aug '02

Sorry, I forgot to CC the list.

1 0

is it a GPL violation or not ?
by Jerome Alet 24 Aug '02

24 Aug '02

Hi, I know I will certainely look stupid for asking the very same question I've asked some months ago (April 11th), which was answered by several persons here, but in fact I hadn't read carefully a software license which seems problematic to me : I've coded a library which I distribute under the GNU GPL. Someone made a software which uses my library, and distributes his software WITHOUT my library which has to be downloaded separately. I thought rightfully that the other software's license was BSD, and someone on this list answered me that this is OK to do so, since GPL and BSD are compatible licenses, so they don't have to put their software under the GNU GPL. But today I've read their license again, and now I'm puzzled. Their license reads : """ This software is Copyright (c) 2001 XXXXXX. All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research and non-profit purposes, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following three paragraphs appear in all copies. Permission to incorporate this software into commercial products may be obtained by contacting YYYYYY """ Their license doesn't end here but the rest is the end of the standard BSD license, i.e. the uppercased "disclaimer of warranties". The "normal" BSD license says "for any purpose" instead of "for educational, research and non-profit purposes", and doesn't include a special offer for commercial licensing. This license doesn't seem to be completely free to me. So considering that this software uses my library, doesn't work without my library, but is not distributed with my library which has to be downloaded separately, is distributing their software under this license a possible GPL violation or not ? Last time I've understood that they can distribute each individual part of their own software under any license they want provided that my library isn't used in those parts. It seems that the GPL FAQ entry at : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL clearly says so. The more I read this FAQ, the more I think they should license their software under the GPL. NB : Their tarball doesn't contain any license at all, nowhere, the license I'm talking about is only on their software's web site. Sorry again if I'm looking stupid, but as we say here : "le ridicule ne tue pas" Thanks in advance PS : more info privately upon request Jerome Alet

4 6

[Uraeus@linuxrising.org: GStreamer state of affairs]
by Rui Miguel Seabra 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

This forwarded message has the off-topic paragraphs cut (with (...)), you can read the full message at: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2002-August/msg00307.html ----- Forwarded message from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <Uraeus(a)linuxrising.org> ----- Date: 22 Aug 2002 18:07:21 +0200 From: Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <Uraeus(a)linuxrising.org> To: gstreamer-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Cc: desktop-devel-list(a)gnome.org Subject: GStreamer state of affairs X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.7 (...) License Audit I have been trying to get many of the libraries we depend on relicensed ^^^^^^^^^^ from the GPL to the LGPL. Apart from the positive reponse from the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Effectv people I have had little success so far. Problem has actually not been people saying no, but people being hard/impossible to reach with their email addresses just bouncing my mail. One of the positive reponses I got a some time ago was from ffmpeg author Fabrice Bellard who where willing to let us use the libavcodec ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ part under the LGPL. Question is if this is enough? If we want to use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the ffmpeg code for avi and asf decoding/encoding I guess I need to ask if he would be willing to let us use that. Not that switching to ffmpeg ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ for avi would give us a more restrictive license that avifile as avifile ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is also GPL. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ (...) Media formats We currently support a very large number of media formats, but we still lack support for some of the more important ones like asf, wmf and realvideo. Our Quicktime support would also become much better if we could include the sorenson-compatible codec now bundled with Xine. There is lots of code available out there for use to use as a starting point for adding plugins for these formats, question is which code to use and a factor here should maybe be what chance we have to get to use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that code under the LGPL. I will in addition to contacting ffmpeg also ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ contact the xine people to see what their willingness to use their stuff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ under the LGPL is. Any suggestions for other sources to check with in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ order to get access to LGPL code please let me know. Short term I think getting asf support is the most important task, and as David Schleef gets our browser plugin up and running maybe having wmf/real support will become more important if we want to transparantly support webradio etc. (...) ----- End forwarded message ----- <mood type="very disappointed">Why do I rejoice?</mood> Not the best of days... unfourtunately :( *sigh*

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion August 2002