Fedora's way forward

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 3/28/06, Eric S. Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:
> The page says $50K one time flat fee for a decoder.
Is that for the codebase or per distributor of binaries?

Considering that
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html
delibrately states that you need to pay royalities even if you
licensed the the code from a third-party, I do not believe the "paid
up" option would cover everyone using the codebase from a single open
source project as you would suggest it would. In fact it seems to me
the royalty is meant to be paid per distributing entity of the binary
format. Feel free to contact the licensing entity which controls the
patent royalty licensing terms and clear that up. What exactly is
"paid up"? If the lame project "paid up" would anyone be allowed to
re-distribute binaries using the lame project source code without
paying additional royalties? Would people be allowed to make modified
versions of lame source code and redistribute binaries based on that
modified source without having to pay additional royalties?

Exactly what is covered by the "paid up" language could even impact
the ability of 3rd party vendors who create verbatim copies of the
fedora installation media and update packages.. if the patent holder
determines that someone like cheapbytes counts a new distributing
entity. For all we know the "paid up" terms cover only public
distribution from locations controled by the "paid up" entity. Without
specific language covering the terms which outline "paid up" status,
parsed by a lawyer, we can't even assume that public mirrors on
servers outside the control of Red Hat could carry this material.

I think you have read too much into the phrase "paid up" and have
given the patent holder too much benefit of the doubt as to their
intent with that phrase. We should all  refrain from making too many
assumptions that support our specific goals with regard to being able
to provide as much mp3 decoding support as is reasonable.

Since you seem to think there are yet to be discovered options in this
area for the community to "pay up" for a codebase, please contact the
patent holds for more information regarding the specific terms and
conditions detailing "paid up" status... especially with regard to
conditions as to coverage afforded to third parties who of
redistribute source code, binaries and modifications of both. I look
forward to your detailed analysis as to what options that we as
upstanding members of the foss community have after you have had a
chance to contact the appropriate patent holds and have reviewed the
specific terms and conditions of the "paid up" licensing option.


-jef