[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] The mp3 issue

From: Dean Linkous
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] The mp3 issue
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:27:46 -0800 (PST)

--- Anthony Patarini <address@hidden> wrote:

>> Does a end user need a patent license?
> Yes, which Fluendo has already acquired for you, and
> only you.

Why would it be for only me if they are providing the
source code under a MIT/X11 license. Obviously they
have the permission needed to be able to distribute
source so I would think anyone using that source would
automagically be covered. I do not sign, click, or
agree to anything when I get the source code from
fluendo so why would someone I pass it on to not be
covered the same as me.

But I am just being argumentative. You are likely
correct. It just seems to me that fluendo would not be
able to provide the source as a public download IF
some type of patent agreement went with it.

> No. The patent license is not sublicensable in such
> a way. The license, 
> as far as "normal" users are concerned, extends only
> to them. Basically, 
> if you got the code from Fluendo or an authorized
> distributor, you have 
> a patent license. If you didn't get it from an
> authorized source, you do 
> not.

Once again, the source is provided by public download
so what would be a "normal" user and what would be a
"non-normal" user?

Okay, so how about a packagea user has to install and
that package is a script that fetches the source code
for the user, compiles it, and then installs it. Would
that make a user a "normal" user? :)

I honestly have no idea and you quite likely are
correct I am just wondering 'what if' stuff.

Thanks for the discussion! 

Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]