Thomson: MP3 Licensing Same As It Ever Was

Thomson Multimedia is downplaying the recently reported change in the licensing of patented MP3 technology as nothing more than a trivial, semantic change. In a NewsForge report today, Robin ("roblimo") Miller quotes a spokesman who denies that any change in the licensing terms has taken place, "that Thomson laid down its licensing terms long ago, and that if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were." The patent encumbrance of MP3 codecs has worried Free software enthusiasts for a long time; if the recent wording change represents no change in policy, it seems that they really have been right all along. (NewsForge, like Slashdot, is part of the sinister OSDN keiretsu.)

Comments

Foolishness

[Winnipenguin]

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice ... you know the rest. // This .sig does not exist

Re:Foolishness

[yesthatguy]

Ummm...double shame on me? I don't know how you got modded up, but I think you were looking for "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Not that that's particularly insightful, funny, informative, or any of the other positive mods.

No looking back

[vex24]

This is a no-brainer... Ogg works great; support it, use it, and push it on the hardware player manufacturers. They have a good business case for supporting it.

Digital music is dead. Long live digital music!

Re:stop blaming Thomson

[Jucius Maximus]

"I agree with other posters - hardware manufacturers will pay the cost and raise their prices by a buck or two. But as for software decoders, only companies like MS will be able to afford the licensing fees. This spells the end of GPL MP3 decoders."

In true /. style, you have not read the article:

Arland says Thomson not only allows but encourages the use of MP3 technology in free client-side players, that "it is in our best interest to have as many freely distributed MP3 players as possible" available to users, because this helps keep MP3 popular. He also says Thomson has no plans to start charging royalties to producers of freely-distributed MP3 player software, and that "it would not be in our best interests to do so." But, he says several times -- using slightly different words each time -- the second you sell software or hardware that contains Thomson's patented technology, the company wants money, and this is not negotiable, GPL or no GPL.

A few words can make a BIG difference!

[Newer Guy]

"The controversy was created by the removal of this line in the old MP3 royalty licensing page from the current version: "No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users." Hmmm..let me remove a few more lines (removed ones in brackets[ ]).... Please [Remember to give Mr. Jones his heart pills] before feeding Mr. Jones any food. Make sure his bib is on. When opening the transmitter door [Make sure the high voltage is off]. Remember to discharge the capacitor with a clip lead. [Oncoming traffic during rush hour in] Express lane. Point made Thomson?

BSD Legal Distribution?

[Laven]

Because the GPL (General Public License) allows all software licensed under it to be sold, this may mean that "freely distributable" MP3 players cannot be licensed under the GPL. Arland says he is not familiar with the GPL; that Thomson laid down its licensing terms long ago, and that if Thomson's terms are not compatible with the GPL today, then they never were.

Arland says Thomson not only allows but encourages the use of MP3 technology in free client-side players, that "it is in our best interest to have as many freely distributed MP3 players as possible" available to users, because this helps keep MP3 popular. He also says Thomson has no plans to start charging royalties to producers of freely-distributed MP3 player software, and that "it would not be in our best interests to do so." But, he says several times -- using slightly different words each time -- the second you sell software or hardware that contains Thomson's patented technology, the company wants money, and this is not negotiable, GPL or no GPL.

IANAL, but it appears that a BSD licensed equivalent of mpg321 and XMMS plugin would have no legal problems with distribution from a 3rd party non-profit site?

The Open Source community should check on this possibility. If this is found to be legal, then it may be fairly simple for a single non-profit site to have downloads of MP3 capable software taylored for each popular Linux distribution. Sure, that isn't perfect, but better than nothing.

Troll!

[Cutriss]

This was a copy/paste from another person's post from the article from three days ago. Not that the moderators have any way of knowing this, but it's not insightful if it's not *your* insight.

Licensing scheme was changed, and it's documented.

[Chuckaluphagus]

The licensing scheme is not the same as it always was, and there is documentation of this fact at The Internet Archive.

The recorded page from August of 2000 stated that:

"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."

The page from the same date for third-party encoders is pretty much the same as they said, though- so LAME, blade, etc., seem to have been afoul of this for a while. Which is pretty awful, since they're great software.

The record at the Archive was brought up in a previous article, so I'll give credit to that individual whose name I don't have on hand. And Flarelock, for the "1984" post above, that's a nice touch.

Re:So why pull the software?

[joncarwash]

Red Hat has indeed pulled all mp3 support in the most recent Rawhide update. It still comes with xmms and the like, just without mp3 support.

Here's the link

Re:MP3 technology not compatible with GPL

[i am fishhead]

3. Hence, the patent license for free (as in beer) MP3 decoders is not compatible with the GPL;

If John Q. Hacker makes a GPL'd MP3 encoder / decoder .... it's ok .. as long as he doesn't charge for it. The patent license is compatable with some (but not all) uses of the GPL.

RedHat could refrain from distributing the software, but still make an easily accesable link available so a user could get it from the author's site.

Re:Author is violating the GPL

[Cid Highwind]

The GNU GPL anticipates this issue, and explicitly states in section 7:

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

That's true, but as long as you are not charging for the product, that's alright. If some group who downloads your software starts charging for it, they are in violation of the patent, not you. You still comply with the GPL clause requiring the software be redistributable without paying patent royalties as long as you personally aren't charging for it. I think you're in the clear, but IANAL, YMMV, and other disclaimers apply.