Fluendo announces cost free MP3 plugin for GStreamer

Sorry to self-reply, but this comment does not clear it up for me:

...be aware that even if our binary is made from MIT licensed source code the resulting binary combined with our license is not free software, at least not GPL-compatible. This means that if you ship GStreamer with our binary mp3 plug-in, you need to be sure that you don't ship any GPL-licensed plug-ins that could end up being used together with the mp3 plug-in, as this would violate the GPL. And you don't want to violate the GPL. You also need to make sure you don't ship any GPL-licensed players which would use this plug-in.

My reading indicates that Free Software distributions (Debian, Red Hat/Fedora) will probably still not be able to ship this.

(PS, can we please have a <blockquote> tag? The <dl><d> hack is silly.)

"You also need to make sure you don't ship any GPL-licensed players which would use this plug-in."
I don't even know any non-GPL players utilizing GStreamer O_o So that is quite a requirement. Even Totem, Gnome's default media player is GPL..
-WareKala

Well, of course everything would be easier if people and corporations did only use free format for everything, but that will never ever happen. Corporations will always continue to come up with their own "clever" compression formats, for whichever use they wish, and probably try to force DRM for everyone.

But, I just recently read some article, dunno where, but they had used a lot of time and equipment for comparing mp3 and vorbis. Their final conclusion was that mp3 sounds better than vorbis, even though the differences aren't really easy to notice without any equipment.
-WareKala

Eh, if we could live in a perfect world... =)

Totem has an exception for non-free gst-plugins.

The GPL would require that source code be available for the MP3 module if it is distributed with and linked to GPL software. The source code is available. It doesn't matter that you require a license for the patent of MP3 to legally use the source code. GPL does not require that source code be unencumbered by patents. Not that I'm aware of anyway. If that were the case, ANY MP3 codec implemented will be incompatible with the GPL. I don't believe that is the case.

Chains find only willing wrists...so if you're willing, vote Republican.

I am not a laywer etc., but my/our undetstanding of it is that GPL and enforced patents are simply not compatible, source code or not. The problem is that the GPL states that anyone receiving the code from you should have the same rights in regards to its use(sorry don't remember exact words atm) as yourself, which in the case of patent encumbered code would not be true.

Of course this only applies in countries where there is patents on MP3.

If I supply you with the source code for a binary I have distributed to you. You can compile that source and make modifications to it and you can redistribute the source. That is in complete agreement with the GPL. Now, in order for me to have legally supplied you with the binary, I needed to "license" rights to the MP3 patent. You are completely free to license the MP3 patent as well. So, you have the same rights to redistribute that I had. Is that not the case?

Seriously though, I'm not a lawyer either, but, I've read the GPL several times and I just don't see how this is not compatible with it. I think GPL3 is a different matter though. I think it specifically addresses the issue of patent encumbrance.

Anyone from FSF/GNU that could clear this up?

And why would, say, RedHat include this decoder but not the other ones?

Because this one is 100% legal. Fluendo has made a deal with the patentholders.

Modded down eh? What's the matter... it's not off-topic, or inflammatory. It's an observation based on a previous blog post by Christian Schaller (a GStreamer developer and Fluendo employee), and a question to him -- which he ignored on his blog comments page -- about what he meant by his comment regarding work happening at Linux distros to prevent bypassing DRM.

GStreamer is the media framework for GNOME -- and given their stated aim to include DRM, and use signed binaries that violate everything that Free software stands for, it is perfectly right to ask them these kind of questions.

Obviously someone on gnomedesktop.org disagrees... but then this board has never been lacking in short-sighted lickspittles.

There's some info in their MP3 page:

"Fluendo has paid the license of Fraunhofer and Thomson to be able to distribute a binary mp3 decoder. This means that people who want mp3 support for the desktop music players can get a fully licensed plug-in directly from this site for doing so."

The problem with MP3 is that you have to pay Fraunhofer for every application you sell that supports it. The new Fluendo plug-in allows you NOT to pay, because Fluendo has already done it.

It's not a problem solver, but it's a workaround.

The Fluedno plug-in only applies to binaries downloaded from Fluendo. If you rebuild it, you lose the license... indeed, very soon, once Fluendo start signing their binaries and implementing their DRM, you will lose the ability to recompile Gstreamer at all and still use their much-hyped codec downloads for things like WMV and Real -- because your binary will no longer be "signed" by Fluendo and the codecs won't load.

File this under: Why you should not download any binaries from Fluendo, since they are about to take a big fat dump on everything the GPL represents. Indeed, why you should not trust *anything* including press statements and source code from Fluendo.

I truly hope you're just being paranoid, but I have to agree with you that when plugins aren't compateable with the GPL, things aren't looking good.
Since I don't have the time to join the gstreamer development team, all I can do is *hope* you're not right...

So people: join gstreamer development to make sure TopDown is wrong :-)

I hope I'm wrong too, truly... but I'm not asking you to believe me on this subject.

You can read Schaller's own words on the topic of signed and trusted binaries (check further up the thread for another of my posts). If you still doubt me, email him and ask him. I'd appreciate hearing the response. He doesn't seem to want to answer questions on it -- not even from his fellow GNOME developers.