Keyper7
October 31st, 2008, 03:22 AM
Okay, the title is a little bit over-dramatic, but hey, I got your attention if you're reading this. :)
OKay, so I googled and forum-searched and whined and cried for answer for these two questions, but didn't find a satisfactory one so far. The few attempts to answer similar questions I found were more like guesses, without the backing up of an official statement from Canonical or the MP3 patent holders.
So here's hoping that the wonderful community here can help me on this and put an end to my terrible doubts. ;)
1) The fact that MP3 codecs are made available on the official Ubuntu repositories puts Canonical in which legal position?
It's claimed that licensing issues are the reason why MP3 codecs are not distributed with Ubuntu. I can understand that, but why can't the patent holders sue Canonical for hosting easy-to-get compiled binary codecs on the official repositories?
The official LAME site only gives away the source code, and not compiled binaries, to avoid legal problems. Furthermore, it seems that for packages like libdvdcss there's problem even in putting on the official repositories, as they're not there.
Which brings me, by the way, to a sub-question: why the maintainers of Medibuntu are not being sued for giving away libdvdcss?
2) What's the technical and legal differences between downloading gstreamer-ugly and gstreamer-fluendo to decode mp3? Furthermore, what's the difference between the fluendo packages on the repositories and the fluendo packages on the Canonical store?
OKay, so I googled and forum-searched and whined and cried for answer for these two questions, but didn't find a satisfactory one so far. The few attempts to answer similar questions I found were more like guesses, without the backing up of an official statement from Canonical or the MP3 patent holders.
So here's hoping that the wonderful community here can help me on this and put an end to my terrible doubts. ;)
1) The fact that MP3 codecs are made available on the official Ubuntu repositories puts Canonical in which legal position?
It's claimed that licensing issues are the reason why MP3 codecs are not distributed with Ubuntu. I can understand that, but why can't the patent holders sue Canonical for hosting easy-to-get compiled binary codecs on the official repositories?
The official LAME site only gives away the source code, and not compiled binaries, to avoid legal problems. Furthermore, it seems that for packages like libdvdcss there's problem even in putting on the official repositories, as they're not there.
Which brings me, by the way, to a sub-question: why the maintainers of Medibuntu are not being sued for giving away libdvdcss?
2) What's the technical and legal differences between downloading gstreamer-ugly and gstreamer-fluendo to decode mp3? Furthermore, what's the difference between the fluendo packages on the repositories and the fluendo packages on the Canonical store?