Slashdot Mirror
Fedora Will Get Full Mp3 Support, As IIS Fraunhofer Terminates Mp3 Licensing Program (fedoramagazine.org)
An anonymous reader quotes Fedora Magazine:
Both MP3 encoding and decoding will soon be officially supported in Fedora. Last November the patents covering MP3 decoding expired and Fedora Workstation enabled MP3 decoding via the mpg123 library and GStreamer... The MP3 codec and Open Source have had a troubled relationship over the past decade, especially within the United States. Historically, due to licensing issues Fedora has been unable to include MP3 decoding or encoding within the base distribution... A couple of weeks ago IIS Fraunhofer and Technicolor terminated their licensing program and just a few days ago Red Hat Legal provided the permission to ship MP3 encoding in Fedora.
Waiting until the patent expires requires patience, but Linux has outlived a LOT of patents, and as more expire, expect to see more currently-patented tech offered in the base distribution instead of having to hunt down a repository (such as Pacman) that has them in another part of the world where the patent is already expired oir is otherwise legally allowed to be distributed.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Who cares about Fraunhofer's MP3? We've had LAME since 1998, and Ogg Vorbis since 2000. LAME's VBR (Variable Bit Rate) is better than even AAC, let alone Fraunhofer's crap licensing. And we can't forget FLAC and WavPack.
Why was this voted -1? Very informative.
Maybe because it's factually incorrect.
GPL is the GNU Public License, not, as the OP claims, the GNU Protective License.
Compiling with gcc does not infect your source. You might be required to release your source for other reasons, but not because you compiled it with gcc. Their lawyers are mistaken. And even if you wanted to be ultra conservative and believe the lawyers anyway, you can always compile with clang, or Intel's icc, or AMD's acc to get around that.
Finally, the GPL doesn't require you to give source to everyone. You only have to give it to people who ask for it. Let's say you build a system for Dewey Cheatham and Howe. If they're the only ones who know about it, and they're the only ones who could ask for it. If you put your software your software on a web site for download only then would anyone know about it and be able to ask for the source
No, IANAL. But I've been working with FOSS and the GPL for 25 years, so I know a little something about it. In the end though it's always what your own lawyer tells you that matters. So get a lawyer and pay for your legal advice.
I see no need for anyone to add MP3 support to any Linux distro because while MP3 was good for the time, it's basically noisy garbage now that there has been significant competition and three orders of magnitude improvement on both storage capacity and network bandwidth. However, what this does mean is that any part of MP3 that was somehow better can now be incorporated into other codecs, so it's not a total loss... just 96kbps lossy. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
doesn't this affect all open source? Programs like Audacity can finally export MP3s natively without including "complex" and sometimes confusing instructions on how to download the MP3 codec
Just another second banana
So I can find some mp3 files to play.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
Only in very limited circumstances is this the case. The output of a GPL tool isn't GPL unless the tool copies part of itself into its output. For example, the Bison parser generator copies part of itself into its output, and GCC copies libgcc and libstdc++ into a compiled program. But these are under a dual license allowing linking to proprietary software provided no GPL-incompatible plug-ins affect translation of preprocessed source code to assembly language code.
Also if you only use the code internally you don't have to distribute your changes. You only have to give away your changes if you let others to use your modified program.
Less of a shit has never been given about Ogg Vorbis.
egg what?
The codec used for a video of egg-shaped cartoon characters if no patented codecs are installed.
three orders of magnitude improvement on both storage capacity and network bandwidth.
Peak or sustained bandwidth? True, satellite and cellular data links in the 2010s have a much faster peak throughput than the V.90 link common in the 1990s. But if you pay for a 10 GB/mo plan, your sustained throughput is 10 GB/mo * 8000000 kbit/GB / 30 day/mo / 86400 s/day = 30.9 kbps, which closely matches the usable downstream of a V.34 dial-up modem.
But in all seriousness, why would anyone bother with MP3 today.
Car stereo with MP3 CD player and no 3.5 mm input. And the fact that two out of the three major recorded music download stores (Amazon and Google Play) deliver purchased recordings in MP3 format.
AAC has taken over from MP3 and of course there is no video but it's still welcome. I wish that dists would offer users the choice to browse additional repositories as a final installation step. Stuff like additional codecs, drivers, certain software could all be installed at this stage.
Finally, the GPL doesn't require you to give source to everyone. You only have to give it to people who ask for it.
You don't have to give it to anyone who ask for it either. Only if they got the binaries from you, and thus are a licensee. The main benefit of that is that if you provide a GPL program (usually by modifying something that is already GPL) to a customer customized for their needs and include the source code, no-one else can require you to give them the source code. Thus, the changes can remain confidential. The customer does have the source code and can modify as much as she wants, however - or have someone else do it.
Because, like your post, it's a Troll post.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
In this day and age you need at least four more codecs to be supported to watch movies downloaded from torrents: AAC, AC3, DTS and AVC/H.264. And pirates have already started adopting HEVC/H.265.
And PLEEEEZE get a competent one, one who is trained and specializes in copyright/IP issues.. Sounds like the one quoted earlier was likely an "ambulance-chaser" who did a quick google search before he posted his warning... Lawyers.. Can't live WITH them and you can't live WITHout them (sure would like to try though)...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
It's important to get the details right too, not just the conclusion: if GCC were entirely GPL-licensed, then building with GCC would likely require the result not to be released under a non-GPL license: building with GCC causes the program to be linked with GCC's own runtime libraries (by default anyway, some parts statically linked, other parts dynamically linked), and the requirements on linking to GPL-licensed libraries are well-known. GCC isn't just GPL-licensed though. It has a license exception that allows linking to its own runtime libraries in some ways that would be prohibited by the GPL, and that's why the story isn't true.
How long until the MPEG-2 patents expire so we can have DVD playback?
I mean seriously, these "lawyers" thinks compiling your program "infects" it with the GPL?
Actually it's not that simple. If GCC were covered entirely by the standard GPL, and if you were to distribute binaries compiled by it, then it might do exactly that. The reason why it doesn't is because of something called the GCC Runtime Library Exception (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html).
No, I don't remember that, because it never happened. Fedora was created by Red Hat and run by Red Hat employees from the very beginning. Which is why, when I tried it out in 2004, it didn't have MP3 or anything else non-free that other distros shipped -- Red Hat set the rules against that from the start.
This space intentionally left blank
Also, if you make the software available for download, _and_ make the source code available for download at the same time, then you have fulfilled your duties according to the GPL license, so you have no obligation to give the source code to anyone asking for it (just providing the ability to download it with the source is Ok).
You don't have to give it to anyone who ask for it either. Only if they got the binaries from you, and thus are a licensee.
That is only true if you provide binaries together with the source code. If you do that, you are done.. But if you don't provide binaries and source code together, then you have to provide source code to anyone asking for it.
When we forget our history, we forget ourselves. Before Red Hat hat took it over in hamhanded fashion, there was a community project called fedora.us, the real Fedora project, as compared to Red Hat's fake community project, which is actually Red Hat's fake community project, renamed. Now the real original project is so buried under Red Hat sediment that people like you post revisionism to public forums, blithely unaware of what really happened. But such hings leave tracks on the internet
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You should get better lawyers. The ones you have apparently can't read a simple license for comprehension.
AC3 patents expired on March 20, 2017
For Mpeg2,
OS news says 2018.
http://mobile.osnews.com/story...
But DVD's were sold in the US in 1995(1996 with CSS), so for patents after on mpeg2, DVD is prior art. So 2016 or 2018.
If you do not modify the source of GPL software, then you can use without restriction or cost.
The only real GPL requirements come when modify the software and use the modified software. And practically, the requirements are practically only enforced when you distribute the modified software or sell something with the modified software.
This is actually much less restrictive than the software license of Microsoft, since you mentioned WIndows.
Imagine if you modify the source code for Windows, then wanted to distribute the modified software...
Well first, you would need to get the software from Microsoft, which is likely only available in very rare circumstances.
Derivatives of the software would be under Microsoft's copyright, and could not be distributed without Microsofts explicit permission.
Agreed. People should have gotten the hint when the OP was using self-authoritative dialog such as "Consulting for several large companies" and "top online investment firm".
Rule of thumb people: when an AC (or even a number) starts using inflated buzzphrases such as "...worked for a Fortune XXX company...", "Top {insert industry} company", or ANYTHING that puts themselves on a pedestal then it's most likely a troll.
A) If these companies were in fact large, and would benefit from access to windows source code, they would probably already have it. Proprietary isn't exactly the same thing as secret.
B) Either your lawyers are idiots, or (more likely) you didn't understand any of their words.
C) What keeps linux from being competitive with Microsoft is that one is that one of those things is a company, and the other isn't. Linus gets the same salary if you use linux, or if you use something else. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes a different amount of money if you buy their OS, or if you don't.
I don't mind the lawyers, what I hate are the assholes who don't understand what the lawyers said, who didn't take the time to learn that language, and yet they pretend they just care so much about legal issues and they're going to edujumacate me.
GCC isn't just GPL-licensed though. It has a license exception that allows linking to its own runtime libraries in some ways that would be prohibited by the GPL, and that's why the story isn't true.
Well, and without any exceptions it would be no problem, distros would include GCC toolchains that linked to other libraries. I mean, cross compilation is one of the reasons gcc is used so much. It isn't hard to create a different toolchain that links in a different library with the same API/ABI.
It not only isn't true, if it had been true it would have stopped being true very very quickly.
Did you expect them to be born with that information?
Your post makes no sense. You don't need Windows OS closed source code to write and distribute your own software running on Windows.
When we say GCC, we usually mean GCC toolchain which include compiler, linker, assembler, all the binutils AND the standard runtime libraries. The exception is for the runtime libraries like glibc for you to use any standard C functions like printf, malloc, fopen, etc. If you are going to write your program with no dependencies to standard libraries and reinvent the wheel for malloc, printf functions, then you don't need the exception, but for most sane people we need to depend on glibc which is why the exception applies.
In your MS Word analogy, you are still bounded by the licences of the fonts and images you use for your word documents. Example if you use Calibri font to type your document and and send it via email to someone with Mac or Linux machine, they can view the document exactly like you did unless they buy and install Calibri fonts from Microsoft https://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/family.aspx?FID=287
Because he is a troll who has posted this copy & paste garbage many times. If the scenario was true, it only shows how inexperienced their company is at software development.
...Red Hat Legal provided the permission to ship...
Big of them. Remember when Fedora was an actual community distribution, and nobody had to raise their hand to go to the toilet?
To whichever Red Hat employee modded this down: fuck you, and fuck your increasingly evil company.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
well, the same applies to linux, plus if you want you can view and modify linux code. With windows you can't even see it, and it would be illegal to distribute a modified version if you managed who knows how to get the source code.
I suspect you're wrong that distros would include GCC toolchains that linked to other libraries. I can see distros that wouldn't object to such a license and release everything under GPL. I can see distros that would never have started with GCC in the first place, preferring to stick with older compilers, perhaps pcc. And I can see distros sticking with older versions and/or migrating to clang if GCC changed its license now. (We do have one very well-known company which already switched from GCC to clang after a license change.) What I can't see is major distros using GCC, but modifying it to link to third-party runtime libraries. The reason why I can't see that is because it's a maintenance burden on the distros, for little to no benefit to them.
A notable compiler which is dual-licensed, either entirely GPL (including runtime libraries) or available for a price under GPL + runtime library exception, is GNAT GPL / GNAT Pro. For which the runtime library later largely ends up in FSF GCC, where it's then made available for free under GPL + runtime library exception. Yet it appears to still be doing well.
You misunderstand the history, there was not a reasonable alternative to GCC, and the parts of GCC that get linked in would be easy to replace. That's why they made the exception, because without it people would be linking BSD-licensed parts in and it would weaken FSF's sociopolitical efforts.
It wouldn't be any maintenance burden because it would have already been the traditional practice by the time modern distros were created. It would be more work now because GCC is so much more optimized than it was 25-30 years ago.
GNAT is an Ada compiler, and is part of GCC. So that is an example of exactly what I was saying; if they don't provide it with an exception, it is easy to write dual-licensed stuff that works with GCC. Allowing that is a compromise of the core FSF principles that takes into consideration the reality that they can't stop proprietary software from existing and letting people compile it with GCC benefits GCC and the FSF. But remember, the FSF only believes in Free Software, they don't believe in Open Source, and they'd actually prefer to live in a world where GCC didn't need any exceptions.
Much more difficult than the library bits we're talking about is the C standard library, which is already available in BSD versions for all sorts of platforms including niche embedded platforms with very few users. If GCC didn't have an exception, there would be platforms like x86_64-distro-nongnulinux-gcc. For the distros and compiler users it wouldn't matter, but for FSF that would suck! And considering that a lot of compiler features are donated by companies who use GCC, the alternative might end up as the typical one. Distros already provide me with a wide variety of platform targets. The only reason that nongnu GCC-compatible libs aren't one is that there is no use case because of the exception.
You say there was no reasonable alternative. I mentioned pcc. BSD had at one point made the switch from pcc to gcc and they could have switched back. I see no reason for not considering it a reasonable alternative.
As for GNAT: although that is part of GCC, I was talking about GNAT GPL and GNAT Pro, which are not.
Right, you're just repeating words.
Yes, you mentioned pcc. Check the wikipedia page for it. Maybe you know more about pcc than the BSD guys or anybody else. But you would still know the reasons it isn't considered a viable alternative. Go and re-start that battle and win that war. But pcc is what gcc replaced, and the people who had talked about wishing it was good enough to use for real have already moved on to clang.
You seem to think the world is just filled with idiots who didn't know why they were making the compiler choices they were making. GCC is good, good enough that people who don't want to use it keep using it anyways. The libraries that get linked in are tiny tiny tiny. It is not a close call or a matter of wild theory; it is a tiny amount of work to replace the parts of gcc that benefit from a GPL exception. The exception only prevents downstream users from having an incentive to more heavily re-package gcc. It does not change anything about who would be using what compiler, or if the compiler license affects the license of the code that gets compiled with it.
I thought we weren't talking about whether it's considered a viable alternative now, but whether it was viable back when the decision to use GCC was initially made. GCC was the superior product back then, but if it had had license restrictions on how its output could be used, that would be one aspect in which it wasn't superior, which would have been a serious reason for some not to use it. Since then, GCC has greatly improved, and sure, pcc has no longer been a reasonable alternative for most uses for 10+ years. Today, clang is a reasonable alternative, and FreeBSD has made the switch, but it wasn't around back then.
One of those libraries is libstdc++. It's fairly big, and not easily replaced. It's possible, sure, there's libc++ now, but I'm curious how long you think it took to develop to a point where it could compete with libstdc++.
Another of those libraries, prior to Java support being dropped entirely in GCC, was classpath. As far as I know, classpath itself never even got to feature-completeness, let alone a replacement for it.
No, some of the libraries that get linked in are tiny tiny tiny, but not all of them.