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

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

Posted Jan 3, 2006 13:06 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
In reply to: GStreamer's MP3 for Linux: Thanks, but no thanks. by jdub
Parent article: GStreamer's MP3 for Linux

jdub wrote:

The code is MIT licensed, and thus, 100% Open Source.

Sorry, Jeff; that doesn't follow. Being under an OSI-approved licence is necessary but not sufficient to make the codebase open source. Additionally, source code must be actually available (which is true in this case, but needn't be the case for somethine merely declared to be "MIT licensed"), and there must not be external legal obstacles preventing exercise of the rights in that OSI-approved licence.

Such as, notably, patents.

Thus, in parts of the world where such a codebase is patent-encumbered (rights not exercisable on account of patent-based restrictions), it's proprietary by definition, as long as those conditions persist.

That's not to say I might not, in some cases, ignore a patent I felt to be either meritless or basically harmless. But it's simply wrong to say that the licence terms are all that matter. No, it's those terms and the ability to exercise them that matter.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

(Log in to post comments)

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

Posted Jan 3, 2006 16:48 UTC (Tue) by ranger (guest, #6415) [Link]

Such as, notably, patents.
Thus, in parts of the world where such a codebase is patent-encumbered (rights not exercisable on account of patent-based restrictions), it's proprietary by definition, as long as those conditions persist.

By your definition, the Linux kernel is proprietary, since it includes patent-encumbered code (such as RCU).

But, the Linux kernel is not proprietary, and considered Open Source (and Free Software etc etc).

Why?

Because of the license IBM has granted for the use of the RCU code, which most people agree has acceptable conditions.

So, the real issue is whether the Linux distribution in question is agreeable with any license terms on an MP3 decoding license.

For example, Mandriva has negotiated with Thompson that it (and others using any Mandriva-based distribution for a non-embedded device) may provide royalty-free MP3-decoding, so MP3 playback works out-the-box.

While it would be nice to have a policy on this in each Linux distribution, people are still arguing the wrong points in this thread.

If you don't want any patent-encumbered code, better not run a 2.6 kernel.

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

Posted Jan 3, 2006 17:07 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

"ranger" wrote:

But, the Linux kernel is not proprietary, and considered Open Source (and Free Software etc etc). Why? Because of the license IBM has granted for the use of the RCU code, which most people agree has acceptable conditions.

You seem unaware that you are actually in strenous agreement with me -- presumably because you didn't read what I wrote attentively.

Allow me to reiterate: "patent-encumbered (rights not exercisable on account of patent-based restrictions)" and "external legal obstacles preventing exercise of the rights".

I'm extremely well aware that by no means does the mere existence of an applicable patent (or other legal encumbrance) does not, in itself, preclude exercise of open-source licensing rights. My comments concerned particular patent encumbrances (and other legal obstances) that do happen to be imposed in a fashion that blocks exercise of those rights.

You, unfortunately, didn't notice that I'd already carefully observed that (elementary) distinction in my post, which is why I'm now obliged to waste time repeating myself. Oh well.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com