Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:05:52 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/lame Makefile Message-ID: <20040324130623.Q62958@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <20040321124606.1013f682@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <200403201452.i2KEqJ9b039309@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040321042730.V93457@blues.jpj.net> <20040321124606.1013f682@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> AFAIK: Restricted implies "do not distribute the source". But
> distributing the source is ok. Only distributing binary packages is
> questionable. That's the reason we don't offer binaries at SF.
By giving someone the sources, we make it easier for someone to use LAME.
IANAL but this might be "contributory infringement." For instance, there
are at least two FreeBSD distributors in the United States, which has
software patents, and where the law says:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USC 1 et seq.],
whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any
patented invention, within the United States or imports into the
United States any patented invention during the term of the patent
therefor, infringes the patent.
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as
an infringer.
--<URL:http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/271.html>;
> I talked with another developer of lame, he knows more about the legal
> restrictions. He told me that he and another guy are distributing
> binaries of lame on their own. So far Thomson is either not aware of
> this (but both people distribute lame since a long time), or Thomson
> doesn't care about them (either because lame is distributed for free, or
> because some people at Thomson have enough knowledge to know they aren't
> able to get (enough) money out of something which is distributed for
> free), or Thomson doesn't thinks they are manufacturers (even if one of
> the developers of lame distributes binaries on his own).
>
> I hadn't marked lame as some kind of restricted so far, since Thomson
> wants to see money only from developers or from manufacturers (see
> http://www.mp3licensing.com/)). I don't see us as manufacturers, but
> Trevor told me, we could be interpreted as manufacturers.
>
> Since english isn't my native language, and I may not be aware of every
> aspect of the word "manufacturer", I suggest to discuss this and tell me
> about the final outcome (or just revert my last commit instead of
> telling me the result).
[...]
> Thomson doesn't offer a license to users, they want to see a big
> transaction from the developers/manufacturers of an mp3 encoder instead.
Thompson didn't say "anyone can use our patents, except manufacturers or
developers," so we don't have its permission to use them. They haven't
given a licence to the authors of LAME, nor to us, nor to most of our
users. We avoided, inconveniently, using the RSA and Lempel-Ziv (GIF)
patents. Using this one illegally until Thompson asks us to stop, or sues
us to make us stop, seems unwise.
--
Trevor Johnson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040324130623.Q62958>