Re: [gst-devel] Can a MPEG-1 with Audio Layers 1&2 plugin be in plugins-good (patentwise)?

[David S. <ds...@sc...>]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 07:41:53AM -0700, jjc...@ya... wrote:
> > Not now, because the relevant patents aren't expired. 
> > The point of
> > -good isn't to pack as much stuff into it as possible
> > -- it's for
> > stuff that distributors don't have to think twice
> > about.  MPEG-1
> > video is not at that point yet.  If the explanation why
> > something
> > can go into -good takes more than about one sentence,
> > it's probably
> > not OK.
> 
> Okay.  What are some of the relevant patents that are unexpired?
> In my internet search, I have not found a single place or person
> that listed a single unexpired MPEG-1 Video patent.  Of course, I
> fully realize that there may be patents out there even if nobody
> on this list can name any.  

That's not the point.  I don't think there is any patent protection
on MPEG-1 video decoding either.  However, IMO, when people deploying
gst-plugins-good hear "MPEG", they think "what about patents?".  This
is not the look we're going for with gst-plugins-good.

> Okay, so let me check.  If libTwoLAME, an LGPL library that encodes
> MPEG-1 Audio Layer 2 was wrapped, and assuming that it was of
> sufficient quality then it could be included in gstreamer plugins-good?  

Yes.  Feel free to improve the one in -bad.

> Also, lets say that mpegaudioparse, which is currently in
> plugins-ugly, had *all* the MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 parsing removed,
> and a new plugin called something like mpegaudiolayer_1_and_2parse
> was created.  Could this hypothetical mpegaudiolayer_1_and_2parse
> be added to plugins-good?

Unless I misunderstand something, mpegaudioparse could be moved to
-good as is.  However, I imagine that whomever made the decision in
the past (check the archive) also used the "MPEG -> ugly" rule.



dave...