[XviD-devel] Re: License/legal discussions

[Jan Rychter]

>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Lampert <chl at math.uni-bonn.de> writes:
 Christoph> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, charact3r wrote:
 >> "[...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
 >> obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,
 >> then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."

 Christoph> I know that this can be read in different ways: Either, you
 Christoph> are allowed to distribute until a court stops you (maybe
 Christoph> being contacted by the patent holder would be enough), or,
 Christoph> the public announcement that a license fee is needed for
 Christoph> distribution is already obligation enough. I don't know what
 Christoph> FSF says about this. I know e.g. that may Linux
 Christoph> distritbutions contain MP3 stuff, but RedHad stopped
 Christoph> inclusion of those a while ago. Jan, have you lawyers told
 Christoph> you anything on this?

Opinions are mixed. Lawyers qualify this as "risky" and basically advise
us to stay away from GPLed software for precisely this issue. FSF plays
down the significance of this clause, I've heard FSF-related people say
that you a court order is needed and the mere existence of a patent is
not enough -- but I have never heard FSF take an "official" stance on
this.

I think the MP3 libraries were removed mostly because of the royalty
requirements, but I can't be sure. Could be the same reason.

My take on all this is that at the very least, the situation is unclear
and unnecessarily risky for those who want to redistribute XviD.

 Christoph> Still, the situation is stupid, and a license which
 Christoph> essentially demands a software to be patent free is bad for
 Christoph> an application like XviD.  And, I still don't think this is
 Christoph> related to commercial/noncommercial. This is a general
 Christoph> question of redistribution.

Agreed on both points.

--Jan