Re: Brasero improvements over the 2.26 release cycle

[Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron Sun COM>]

Josselin:

> Le jeudi 15 janvier 2009 à 11:12 -0600, Brian Cameron a écrit :
> > No distribution can ship any popular non-free GStreamer codecs if
> > the GStreamer based programs link in any GPL code without the exception.
>
> Well first of all, I find this interpretation of the GPL rather extreme.
> A GStreamer plugin is a derived work of GStreamer, but it is not a
> derived work of rhythmbox (unless rb as shipped actually requires it for
> normal operation, of course). However I understand that people want to
> be on the safe side and adopt the most conservative interpretation.

I am not a lawyer, so I can't really say with any authority; but it
seems unclear whether clause 7 of the GPL is in effect if the
non-free code in question is a plugin and the application can be used
without it.  Clause 7 states:

  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.

Regardless, the GNOME community has spent a lot of time making sure
that the licenses clearly avoid any confusion in this area by adding
the GPL license exception.  This seems a good thing and something we
shouldn't just abandon without careful consideration.

> > So, with the exception a distro or mobile device OS using
> > GNOME/GStreamer could purchase a MP3 audio license and include that with
> > their GStreamer based-engine.
>
> They could also purchase a patent license for a free MP3 implementation.
> It’s not as if there weren’t any such implementations.

Right, although things get more complicated if the GPL is involved since
it is a violation of the GPL use this license and distribute code which
requires royalty fees.

Even if, as you suggest, using a plugin framework like GStreamer works
around this, it wouldn't solve the problem for other GPL'ed programs
like VLC or mplayer that link such non-free code directly into the
application.

> > Considering how important mobile is to the GNOME community these days,
> > and how important it is to play things like mp3 audio files or YouTube
> > videos on mobile devices, I would think this would be pretty important
> > issue and concern.
>
> I don’t like spreading statements implying the assumption that free
> software-based h264 or MP3 playback is illegal. This is what Fraunhoffer
> and the MPEG consortium would like to be true, but please don’t assume
> they are right.

It's not inappropriate as long as the free license being used doesn't
disallow such usage.  Clause 7 of the GPL makes it (at the very least)
complicated to use this license to distribute such non-free code.

Note that the GPL restrictions are only concerning distribution.  I
don't believe there is any problem with a person who owns a media
license building their own code to play non-free media.  However, such
free and non-free code may not be distributable together without
violating the terms of the GPL.

You are right, though, that we shouldn't assume.  Perhaps it would be
good to get some authoritative opinion about this, so that we don't
waste time bickering, adding license exceptions if they are needless,
etc.

Brian