GStreamer's MP3 for Linux: Thanks, but no thanks. [LWN.net]

GStreamer's MP3 for Linux: Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted Jan 3, 2006 1:19 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
In reply to: GStreamer's MP3 for Linux: Thanks, but no thanks. by jdub
Parent article: GStreamer's MP3 for Linux

Section 7 of the GPL means that people in countries where the MP3 patents apply to software (for example, the USA) cannot distribute GPL MP3 code. However, it does not constrain those in countries where software patents are not yet valid. This means that, for now, sites like livna do not violate the GPL, even if they allow Americans to access them, and Americans downloading MP3 support from sites like livna aren't violating the GPL, though they may be infringing patents by using the code.

In practice, though, only the copyright holder can enforce a GPL violation, and they won't in this case, so the only danger is from the patent infringement. And that applies to MP3 code regardless of license.

(Log in to post comments)

GStreamer's MP3 for Linux: Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted Jan 11, 2006 20:00 UTC (Wed) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link]

Section 7 of the GPL means that people in countries where the MP3 patents apply to software (for example, the USA) cannot distribute GPL MP3 code.

Interpretations of Section 7 have gotten mad! This statement is as misleading as

Section 7 of the GPL means that you cannot distribute the code you stole by hacking into Microsoft under the GPL.

Neither is legal, but not because of Section 7. Indeed, the GPL itself considers Section 7 a no-op:

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

A summary of Section 7 would be:

If you cannot distribute a body of code under the GPL, you cannot distribute the code under the GPL.

A shorter summary would be:

True.

I'm being extreme--probably Section 7 has some legal significance. However, I don't believe that it forbids distribution in any cases where it would otherwise be allowed. I know that Eben Moglen has said or suggested otherwise, but I haven't heard a plausible explanation. And to be clear, I consider the "for example" in Section 7 a complete non-sequitur.