Slashdot Mirror
BladeEnc 0.80 released under the LGPL
Tord writes "After about half a years delay I have finally released BladeEnc 0.80 under the LGPL.
After some investigations, me and my patent ombudsman could only come to the conclusion that BladeEnc doesn't infringe any of the Swedish MP3 related patents, so I have been recommended to just go ahead with BladeEnc.
I'll explain the patent issues in more detail later. Let's just say that we have found some interesting details...
"
I would guess that the LGPL would help allow BladeEnc be used as a DLL in Windows freeware/shareware programs that is distributed as a binary, since Windows stuff usually doesn't include source, and most people couldn't compile it if it did.
Still, LGPL is much better than binary only. WooHoo!
> isn't the licensing fee only applicable if
> you're charging for your product?
I wish it were so. For *decoders*, it is the case that you don't have to pay unless you charge. For *encoders*, you have to pay regardless. Last I checked, they charge a per-unit license fee with a minimum yearly payment of $15,000.
--
Does this mean that people will be able to build other encoders (albeit possibly illegally) using the information contained in the Bladeenc source? Was this information available before this?
The reason I'm asking is because I don't know of any other GPL/LGPL encoders out there. Are there?
Cool, but useless.
[sorry for the AC post, but I'm at work now and don't have my password handy]
"Just curious, if the author is reading this, what made you release it under the LGPL rather than the GPL?"
Two major reasons actually:
1. BladeEnc has allready been out for a while and a large amount of BladeEnc users are using a closed source Windows ripper like Audiograbber, EAC, Easy CDDA Extractor 3 etc. All these programs are distributed as shareware and the authors have helped me promote BladeEnc. Jukka (creator of CDDA Extractor 3) actually created the DLL version of BladeEnc and Jackie (creator of Audiograbber) have been very supportive. It wouldn't be especially nice of me to suddenly turn my back against them and all the users who use BladeEnc in combination with their programs (which is probably half my userbase).
2. I'm fed up with this MP3 patent situation and those extemely expensive licenses. I want MP3's to be an open standard that can be used by both commercial and free packages. By making my code available for commercial products I do help them to keep down the cost (a number of software developers have shown the interest in purchasing the cheaper license (technology only, no code) from Fraunhofer and use BladeEnc's technology) and to make more products support the MP3 standard. I think this is very important since MP3 as a standard constantly is being fought by companies who are trying to push an even more closed format (like MS Audio, Real Audio, VQF etc) which might be better performance-wise, but would leave both the Free Software and Open Source Movement in the cold if they succeeded. Open standards, used both by free and proprietary software is essential for our success.
For another, future product I will most likely use the GPL instead.
/Tord
So is it legal for me to use BladeEnc in the US or is that still a violation of the patents? How about LAME (a very interesting use of source, I must say)?
Or maybe I'll just wait until the bladeenc page gets updated with the information on patents.
It's not that I like software patents (I don't); I just try to obey laws.