Fedora Will Get Full Mp3 Support, As IIS Fraunhofer Terminates Mp3 Licensing Program (fedoramagazine.org) 133
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.
Sounds good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Sounds good! (Score:3)
You know these Patents only apply to the US and Japan. While I appreciate it, it was not an issue in Thema EU, China etc.
Re: (Score:1)
... The only major caveat is that you become liable for patent infringement ....
Actually, you become responsible for paying the license fees for use of the IP. Infringement only happens if you decide that you are going to use the IP and you are not going to pay those fees, because, well, you aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
How long until the MPEG-2 patents expire so we can have DVD playback?
Re: So... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is another matter yes. But at least you could play decrypted videos once the patents expire.
Re: (Score:2)
I've personally made home DVD videos and even done them as a work for hire, for private and commercial customers, and I never added any encryption to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, I think the industry has realised the cat is well and truly out of the bag on this one.
AC3, MPEG-2 (Re:So...) (Score:3)
AC3 patents expired on March 20, 2017
For Mpeg2,
OS news says 2018.
http://mobile.osnews.com/story... [osnews.com]
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.
Re: AC3, MPEG-2 (Re:So...) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I run linux and I can use brand new hardware that came in a package.
Fraunhofer can stuff it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Fraunhofer can stuff it (Score:4, Informative)
The story is that they can now include LAME , because the patents have expired. Before Fedora had no mp3 support at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down (Score:2)
Less of a shit has never been given about Ogg Vorbis.
egg what?
The codec used for a video of egg-shaped cartoon characters [youtube.com] if no patented codecs are installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Less of a shit has never been given about Ogg Vorbis.
Ogg Vorbis is probably the most used codec of them all, as it is used by Spotify [spotify.com].
Re:Fraunhofer can stuff it (Score:5, Interesting)
Who cares about Fraunhofer's MP3?
Anybody who works with audio that is not 100% in his control from mic to distribution.
As somebody who did some grad work with psychoacoustic modeling, everybody who was a little bit informed on the subject at the time knew that Fraunhofer's patents were BS, well-known stuff. I'm not sure why they weren't invalidated for prior art; it must have been a very narrow claim that MPEG just happened to standardize.
They may have gotten some licensing revenue from this, but I, as well as many others on the open side of the industry, will never do business with them (ever) after the pain they've caused. Same goes for the patent regimes of the respective governments, since it takes two to tango with IP.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent office stopped caring about that and became a revenue collection agency. First to pay trumped prior art, and everything else was a problem to be sorted out in court without involvement from the patent office. They just do not have enough staff to consider prior art and have to trust filers to have done the search for that themselves, so it breaks down at even the slightest touch of dishonesty.
Re: Fraunhofer can stuff it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While I do use ogg and FLAC for my own purposes, AAC is really useful for talking to various devices. Same with mp3. Being able to play media on standard consumer devices is sometimes useful. I can live without them, sure.
MP3 was good for the time. (Score:3)
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. ;)
Peak vs. sustained throughput (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 90s, i would get a sustained throughput of 4KB/s with dialup. Now I can get a sustained throughput of 4MB/s with a cable modem.
Try not to overthink it.
Re: (Score:2)
A subscriber could get dial-up pretty much anywhere. There are a lot of residences in the United States still served by no cable company.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension fail! Classic AC move.
Re: (Score:3)
Well indistinguishable from a CD would have to be Flac or Apple Lossless, which is considerably more than 320kbps.
However last time I checked at 256kbps you will not be able to tell the difference between an MP3 encoded by LAME on maximum quality settings and an AAC, according to the blind listening tests.
The quality of MP3's produced by LAME these days is markedly improved since the heyday of Napster. To be honest most people don't have the equipment to be able to tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3
Re: (Score:2)
I see no need for anyone to add MP3 support to any Linux distro because while MP3 was good for the time
The crap thing about all those new fancy technologies is that it doesn't remove previously encoded files. MP3 is a critical component of any media friendly OS. Although new media is unlikely to come out in MP3, many people have large libraries of MP3s.
Or maybe we should just recompress the lossy compressed files to something "modern". I hear MP3s sound better converted to FLAC because FLAC is lossless and I wouldn't want my MP3s to be causing any more loss than they already have. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The crap thing about all those new fancy technologies is that it doesn't remove previously encoded files.
While this is very true, at some point you need to cut your losses and re-rip your CDs. Alternatively, pirate a higher quality version.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making lots of assumptions on the state or the existence of the source media.
I have a better idea: Given how no one has shown to be able to tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a WAV of a same source, combined with the wide spread compatibility of MP3 being decodable by well pretty much everything, and the fact that storage space just keeps on getting cheaper, how about I just leave well enough alone.
I'll transcode MP3s into something else when MP3s stop working. But why would the expiration
Re: (Score:2)
You're making lots of assumptions on the state or the existence of the source media.
Not really. I said the alternative was to pirate a higher quality version. However, if the only version that exists is in MP3 format, then you have made a grave mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
pirate a higher quality version
Who said the data is the result of piracy? Who said that the data is available via piracy?
However, if the only version that exists is in MP3 format, then you have made a grave mistake
Describe in great detail. What is the grave mistake of archiving something in an audibly perfect format where the source code and tools to decode into other format were available (and continue to be so) in open source and standalone formats?
What grave mistake was made?
Re: (Score:2)
pirate a higher quality version
Who said the data is the result of piracy? Who said that the data is available via piracy?
I wasn't saying the data was the result of piracy, just if you need a higher quality version that piracy is a possible solution. There will always be cases where people are unprepared for the future, you just have to let those people learn from their mistakes.
However, if the only version that exists is in MP3 format, then you have made a grave mistake
Describe in great detail. What is the grave mistake of archiving something in an audibly perfect format
A) Archiving implies that there is another source. I'm talking about making an MP3 and destroying the original audio file.
B) The mistake made was not archiving the audio data in a lossless format and making a lossy version for everyday use.
Re: (Score:2)
A) Archiving implies that there is another source. I'm talking about making an MP3 and destroying the original audio file.
B) The mistake made was not archiving the audio data in a lossless format and making a lossy version for everyday use.
Expand on that. As someone who can not hear even the slightest difference between the original source and the the MP3, what benefit do I get in archiving the original source if I don't own shares in a storage company?
I do the same thing with photos. I destroy the original NEF files from my camera and archive in JPEG when I'm happy with them. The quality won't get any worse in the future, just like with MP3s the quality isn't going to get any worse. It also won't get any better.
Where it does make sense (and
this seems bigger than Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me try to reverse-engineer thewolfkin's argument:
An free application ported to a proprietary operating system containing a licensed encoder can use that encoder. For example, VirtualDub is a free application for Windows, but it can use any encoder implementing the Video for Windows interface. The best known operating system that doesn't ship with licensed proprietary encoders is GNU/Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Debian (and to a degree Ubuntu) have shipped codecs since ages.
In main, or in non-free and contrib?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does. Though some implementations were already legal depending on the host OS - for example, Windows and macOS had licensed codecs available for applications to use, and often times various playback software would use them. QuickTime was a popular one since it was available for Windows and Mac and provided you wit
Will have to reinstall Napster (Score:2)
Amazon and Google Play (Score:3)
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.
Better than nothing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
AAC has taken over from MP3
AAC still has license fees for the codecs. Maybe MP3 will make a comeback (as it is now free) in some use cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat provided permission... (Score:1, Flamebait)
...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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [redhat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
An extra note (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but a lot of music still comes down in MP3 / FLAC.
Re: (Score:1)
It's that or the plank.
Output of GPL tool is rarely GPL (Score:2)
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 [gnu.org] 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 [gnu.org], and GCC copies libgcc and libstdc++ into a compiled program. But these are under a dual license allowing linking to proprietary software [gnu.org] provided no GPL-incompatible plug-ins affect translation of preprocessed source code to assembly language code.
Re: (Score:2)
You should get better lawyers. The ones you have apparently can't read a simple license for comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
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 d
Re: Linux? Bad choice. (Score:1)
Re: Linux? Bad choice. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 han
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: Linux? Bad choice. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: Linux? Bad choice. (Score:3)
Re: Linux? Bad choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Linux? Bad choice. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: Linux? Bad choice. (Score:1)
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 ex
Re: (Score:2)
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)...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 af
Re: (Score:2)
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-
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 makin
Re: (Score:2)
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+
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, like your post, it's a Troll post.
Re: (Score:2)
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.