Fluendo MP3 GStreamer Plugin in Main for Dapper?

[Eric Dunbar]

On 12/29/05, Stephan Hermann <sh at sourcecode.de> wrote:
> On Friday 30 December 2005 00:43, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> > Note that the code is MIT licensed.
>
> Jeff, it's not about the source. The source can be used, when you are living
> in a country where the mp3 patent of frauenhofer is not being licensed.
> In countries where the patent applies, you have to use the binary, non-MIT
> fluendo plugin, which can be distributed under some special terms. There is a
> contract to be signed, and they explicitly stated in their release
> announcement, that several applications which could use the plugin, can't use
> the plugin because of violating the GPL, because the binary plugin is not GPL
> compatible.
>
> 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.
>
> It's all about patents. Patents are evil in this case, that we're not allowed
> to freely use them for non-commercial purposes. It would be wise for
> Frauenhofer, to make a commitment to the opensource software world, and have
> a special treatment for the MP3 patent for (F)OSS.

Are the patents evil simply because... people can't do whatever they
feel like doing because someone else was ingenious enough (and brave
enough to devote resources to the project) to go out and develop
something new, or are these patents evil because they were improperly
granted?

Unfortunately for most whingers, most of the patents covering MP3 fall
into the former category.

People want want want but these patents are valid*. Just because
something is popular doesn't mean that patents should be violated
willy-nilly (of course, many MP3 fans have no qualms about stealing
<ahem, borrowing> music (simply because they can... we don't steal a
TV simply because we can) so it's not surprising that the this
attitude goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it's right to violate
these patents).

*One may believe that patents, or patents on software are evil but
they do serve a useful purpose in that they protect innovators from
theft and encourage the development of new ideas -- without MP3s as a
model to copy (which came to be b/c the developers could patent their
work and profit from it), it's doubtful that people would've gone to
the effort to develop OGG (b/c they wouldn't have had MP3s as
inspiration).

A lot of software patents DO actually meet what is traditionally
considered a valid and good patent -- something that is non-obvious,
new and useful.

Plus, keep in mind that patents expire. IIRC the MP3 patents won't be
around for that much longer, so, like JPEG and GIF before that,
eventually the algorithms will fall into the public domain!

And, just to let WikiPedia have the last word (arguably, the patents
in MP3 produce a useful, concrete and tangible result or a technical
effect):

"However, laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. Software inventions implementing algorithms are not
patentable for this reason unless it produces a "useful, concrete, and
tangible result" (US law) or technical effect (European law)."

Eric.