Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Rhythmbox and our new MP3 plugin

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:57:14PM +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> Sent this during Christmas, but it seems it never got through, so I am
> trying again.
> Hi,
> We (fluendo) released our MP3
> plugin this Christmas ( which we expect
> to get shipped by many Linux distributions. The problem is that this
> plugin is not GPL compatible as it is using patent rights we don't have the
> rights to pass on the way the GPL demands.
> So I am mailing you now to discuss relicensing Rhythmbox like we did with
> Totem so time ago to allow non-GPL compatible plugins to be shipped with
> Rhythmbox. I discussed this issue with Colin some time ago, but he wasn't
> to keen on doing it before we had actually come through with releasing
> this MP3 plugin.
> So I am wondering how the current maintainers and developers feel about
> adding a clause to the license like the one in Totem -
> "The Totem project hereby grant permission for non-gpl compatible GStreamer
> plugins to be used and distributed together with GStreamer and Totem. This
> permission are above and beyond the permissions granted by the GPL license
> Totem is covered by."
> In addition to allowing for this MP3 plugin it makes it possible to
> distribute the Monkeys Audio plugin with Rhythmbox and also the
> future proprietary plugins of Fluendo (and others)

As much as I dislike software patents, I recognise that making life
difficult for users doesn't help.  I'd like the clause to be added.

> If people are interested/willing to do this I don't mind helping out with
> mailing former contributors etc., but I know that there might also be some
> development work needed as one of the former contributors is no longer
> with us.

How thorough are we supposed to be in this?  Do contributors of patches
need to consent, or just people listed in AUTHORS and in copyright
messages in the source files?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]