[Vorbis] open source vs closed source compression

[Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves]

On 3/7/07, Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> Ignoring whether the claim is valid or not, an open-source compression does in no
> way guarantee that software patents are not involved. It's the software patents,
> not the "binary only". However many companies think if they publish binary-only,
> noone can see where their code came from, not to talk about intellectual rights,
> etc.
>
> The other thing is that most users of MP3 don't care about owning a license for
> using it, and some people even think that when using LAME (a binary using LAME)
> does not require them to have an MP3 license. I also think that most vendors of
> MP3 players in the far east do not care much about paying license fees for MP3.

What Ulrich said is quite true.  In the big scheme of things, nobody
cares about patents and free software, and sometimes not even if the
quality is good.  While marketing Vorbis, we have to understand that
what makes it a good format is not its patent status, but its high
fidelity and multi-use qualities.

In the end of the day, only lawyers care about patents; the average
idio--person cares only about marketing hype.

> Long Live open source.

You mean free software.  Be sure to keep that in mind.  Open source is
a term used by Eric S. Raymond, another hack like Steve Gibson, and it
means a totally different thing.  Ever heard of that free as in beer
and speech?  You can't claim that about "open source".  That's why
using the word free software is always better.

-Ivo