Re: [tlug] Open Codecs (was Re: [CoLoCo] RESPECT MICROSOFT)

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

Guete Tag,

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:17:32 +0200
Niels Kobschätzki <n.kobschaetzki@example.com> wrote:

> On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Josh Glover wrote:
> > On 19/08/07, Niels Kobschätzki <n.kobschaetzki@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How many MP3-players are out there for Linux where you can say that
> >> they are legally using the codec (which means have licensed it)?
> >
> > Which is a great argument for Ogg Vorbis or FLAC.
> 
> The whole discussion just lets me think - what are actually free (as  
> in beer) codecs and container-formats (actually - are there  
> containers that have to be licensed?) for music and video?

Well, that depends on your definition of free.
If you mean free as in "you don't pay to use the codec software"
then there are plenty. If you mean "you don't have to pay license
fees under no circumstances" then there are actually very few.
And if you mean "you don't have to pay any license fees and there
are no patents on the codecs that might require to pay royalities"
then there are none.

And don't believe the FUD of Vorbis and Theora. There are tons
of patents that apply to both and theoreticaly you would need
to pay royalities for those. But so far there is not enough money
in it to bother. Same goes for all other open source codecs.
Nobody bothers to ask for money as there is not enough in it.

If for what ever reason you'd need a clear licensing policy for
a codec, go for those that are managed by the MPEG-LA (all MPEG
and VC-1). They have all their terms online and the fees for the
newer codecs are more or less reasonable.


			Attila Kinali