Fluendo MP3 GStreamer Plugin in Main for Dapper?

[John Nilsson]

On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 11:45 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Stephan Hermann">
> 
> > > > In that case, maybe the wording about free software comittment on
> > > > www.ubuntulinux.org should be changed?
> > >
> > > Note that the code is MIT licensed.
> > 
> > Jeff, it's not about the source.
> 
> With regards to Free Software, it most certainly is. The plugin was released
> under an MIT license due to the problematic intersection between section 7
> of the GPL (11 of the LGPL), existing (L)GPL-licensed decoding libraries and
> our desire to be able to provide this functionality to our users (and I say
> "our" in a very broad sense).

The source is fine and free and what ever. The binary provided by
fluendo isn't. I thought the issue was about distributing the fluendo
binary.

> > Means, in Germany or US I think it's not allowed to ship the source, but
> > it's allowed to use the binary plugin of fluendos mp3 thing. But it's not
> > allowed to use the binary plugin with rhythmbox, because it would violate
> > the GPL.
> 
> You *are* allowed to ship the source, as it is covered by copyright and does
> not in itself violate any patents. The contract would provide the ability to
> ship a binary made from the source. That may be appropriate for distribution
> in multiverse, separate distribution by a known third party, or distribution
> of a plugin built for Ubuntu by Fluendo. Incompatibility with other licenses
> does not make Free Software - source or binary - suddenly not Free Software!

The problem is that I as a user cannot modify the binary under the EULA,
thus it cannot be free software. Further more the EULA forbids some
usages, thus it cannot be free software.

If another binary would be created by and for Ubuntu it would(?) be free
software, but wouldn't have the patent grant and thus illegal in say US.

Regards,
John