Re: [gNewSense-users] More on the mp3 issue

[Markus Laire]

On 12/11/06, Brian Kemp <address@hidden> wrote:
> Well, I've done a little digging, and I found this gem from the
> wikipedia article on MP3:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
>
> It's not necessarily definitive, but let's start somewhere.
>
> "Additionally, patent holders declined to enforce license fees on open
> source decoders, allowing many free MP3 decoders to develop.
> Furthermore, while attempts have been made to discourage distribution
> of encoder binaries, Thomson has stated that individuals using free
> MP3 encoders are not required to pay fees. Thus while patent fees have
> been an issue for companies attempting to use MP3, they have not
> meaningfully impacted users, allowing the format to grow in
> popularity."
>
> So basically, were gNS to include a free MP3 encoder, there's no
> licensing fee...but if any encoder/decoder is included, charging a fee
> might be difficult for anyone downstream.  I'm not sure which
> definition of free Thomson used.  I doubt it's the one we're
> accustomed to (Free as in Speech).

I think you are wrong about that "no licensing fee". From the same article:

<quote>
In September 1998, the Fraunhofer Institute sent a letter to several
developers of MP3 software stating that a license was required to
"distribute and/or sell decoders and/or encoders". The letter claimed
that unlicensed products "infringe the patent rights of Fraunhofer and
THOMSON. To make, sell and/or distribute products using the [MPEG
Layer-3] standard and thus our patents, you need to obtain a license
under these patents from us."
</quote>

So anyone distributing gNS would need a license.

--
Markus Laire