Legality of Linux Mint codecs (was linux mint)

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 12:02 +1000, Martin Visser wrote:
> Barry,
> 
> 
> I am guessing you mean patents rather patterns. That said, I think you
> will find that those patents have not been enforced. They may have
> some standing, but I don't think any non-licence holder of media
> codecs and has been subject to legal proceedings in Australia (at
> least publically).

Patents don't get weaker with lack of enforcement: there is no reason to
assume its safe just because there haven't been lawsuites.

> (And put up your hand if you don't use MP3 on Ubuntu (without using
> Fluendo). And if you do, you are, IMHO and remember IANAL, morally
> clear, in that you probably already own multiple devices all that have
> full-licensed patents on them - hence have already paid the patent
> owners multiple times over).

Its up to patent owners how they license: they may license per-device
rather than per-user (or however they choose). If they want a license
per device, you're infringing if you claim that you've paid but then use
another device.

This sucks, but its the current state of law.

Australia permits business process and software patents.

If you want to lobby for changes to the patent system by civil
disobedience, thats your choice: but understand that the risk is real.
In particular, someone distributing patent infringing software is a more
visible target than an anonymous end user that downloads it.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-au/attachments/20100412/0ec10358/attachment.pgp