All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue
@ 2014-09-16  5:43 Khem Raj
  2014-09-16  9:11 ` Carlos Rafael Giani
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2014-09-16  5:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: openembeded-devel, Carlos Rafael Giani

Hi Carlos/All

I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to

meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb

in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since

The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here

http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607

So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ?

Thanks

-Khem


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue
  2014-09-16  5:43 mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue Khem Raj
@ 2014-09-16  9:11 ` Carlos Rafael Giani
  2014-09-16 21:33   ` Denys Dmytriyenko
  2014-09-17  0:20   ` Khem Raj
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Carlos Rafael Giani @ 2014-09-16  9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Khem Raj, openembeded-devel

On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
> Hi Carlos/All
>
> I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to
>
> meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
>
> in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
>
> The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here
>
> http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607
>
> So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Khem

It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties. This is also the reason 
why gst-plugins-ugly and gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this flag.

Carlos


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue
  2014-09-16  9:11 ` Carlos Rafael Giani
@ 2014-09-16 21:33   ` Denys Dmytriyenko
  2014-09-16 22:48     ` Carlos Rafael Giani
  2014-09-17  0:20   ` Khem Raj
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2014-09-16 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: openembedded-devel

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote:
> On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
> >Hi Carlos/All
> >
> >I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to
> >
> >meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
> >
> >in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
> >
> >The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here
> >
> >http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607
> >
> >So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >-Khem
> 
> It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties. This is also the
> reason why gst-plugins-ugly and gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this
> flag.

But does gst-plugins-ugly provide own codecs? It's mostly a collection of 
external plugins, so it shouldn't itself be marked as "commercial":

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/51055

-- 
Denys


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue
  2014-09-16 21:33   ` Denys Dmytriyenko
@ 2014-09-16 22:48     ` Carlos Rafael Giani
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Carlos Rafael Giani @ 2014-09-16 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: openembedded-devel

On 2014-09-16 23:33, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Carlos Rafael Giani wrote:
>> On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> Hi Carlos/All
>>>
>>> I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to
>>>
>>> meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
>>>
>>> in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
>>>
>>> The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here
>>>
>>> http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607
>>>
>>> So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial distribution ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -Khem
>> It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties. This is also the
>> reason why gst-plugins-ugly and gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this
>> flag.
> But does gst-plugins-ugly provide own codecs? It's mostly a collection of
> external plugins, so it shouldn't itself be marked as "commercial":
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/51055
>

But the whole point of gst-plugins-ugly is to be a collection of tested 
high-quality plugins for formats and standards which are subject to 
royalties. Tested quality plugins without the royalty go to -good.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue
  2014-09-16  9:11 ` Carlos Rafael Giani
  2014-09-16 21:33   ` Denys Dmytriyenko
@ 2014-09-17  0:20   ` Khem Raj
  2014-09-17  7:09     ` Carlos Rafael Giani
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2014-09-17  0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Carlos Rafael Giani; +Cc: openembeded-devel

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Carlos Rafael Giani <dv@pseudoterminal.org>
wrote:

> On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>> Hi Carlos/All
>>
>> I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to
>>
>> meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
>>
>> in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
>>
>> The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater detail here
>>
>> http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607
>>
>> So what portions of it are having different terms for commercial
>> distribution ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -Khem
>>
>
> It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties


In what way where the component is lgpl I would like to understand



>  This is also the reason why gst-plugins-ugly and
> gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this flag.
>
> Carlos
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue
  2014-09-17  0:20   ` Khem Raj
@ 2014-09-17  7:09     ` Carlos Rafael Giani
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Carlos Rafael Giani @ 2014-09-17  7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Khem Raj; +Cc: openembeded-devel

On 2014-09-17 02:20, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Carlos Rafael Giani 
> <dv@pseudoterminal.org <mailto:dv@pseudoterminal.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 2014-09-16 07:43, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>         Hi Carlos/All
>
>         I want to understand why LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" was added to
>
>         meta-multimedia/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/mpg123_1.15.3.bb
>         <http://mpg123_1.15.3.bb>
>
>         in initial commit and has been carried over upgrades ever since
>
>         The license seems to be LGPL 2.0 and is explained in greater
>         detail here
>
>         http://mpg123.org/cgi-bin/scm/mpg123/trunk/doc/ROAD_TO_LGPL?revision=2607
>
>         So what portions of it are having different terms for
>         commercial distribution ?
>
>         Thanks
>
>         -Khem
>
>
>     It's because MPEG audio is subject to royalties
>
>
> In what way where the component is lgpl I would like to understand
>
>      This is also the reason why gst-plugins-ugly and
>     gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly have this flag.
>
>     Carlos
>

*mpg123* is LGPL. But mpg123 is an implementation of an MPEG 1 audio 
layer 1/2/3 and MPEG 2 audio. MPEG-1 layer 3 is what everybody calls 
mp3. (mp1 and mp2 are pretty much dead by now.) mp3 itself contains 
patents, and these are subject to royalties. Technicolor (formerly 
Thomson) does enforce these royalties. See 
http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html for their price model.
MPEG-2 is controlled by the MPEG LA.

Note that these royalties cover the audio technology itself (say, mp3), 
*not* the implementations. Implementations themselves can be subject to 
any license, it's up to the authors of the implementations. But if you 
actually want to use these implementations in a commercial product, 
you'll have to pay the royalty fees.

This is part of the reason why Ogg Vorbis (and Opus) exist. They are an 
alternative that doesn't require such fees. Therefore, the Vorbis 
decoder isn't in gst-plugins-ugly, but in gst-plugins-good.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-17  7:09 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-16  5:43 mpg123 recipe LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" issue Khem Raj
2014-09-16  9:11 ` Carlos Rafael Giani
2014-09-16 21:33   ` Denys Dmytriyenko
2014-09-16 22:48     ` Carlos Rafael Giani
2014-09-17  0:20   ` Khem Raj
2014-09-17  7:09     ` Carlos Rafael Giani

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.