[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |j.w.r.degoede at gmail.com

--- Comment #17 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at gmail.com> 2012-09-16 09:11:20 CEST ---
Hi all,

2 things:

1) About the legal issue,
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=16431#c1 says:

"This codec software has been developed by VisualOn based on 3GPP
specifications and has been included in the Android Open-Source Project.
VisualOn believes that it has the necessary rights to the AAC encoder code, but
is in the process of re-confirming this."

Thus I believe that we can and should simply ship this as part of free for 2
reasons:

a) We simply have to trust upstream when it comes to licensing statements, as
there usually is no other source for us to find out where the code comes from,
<period>. We do that for all packages, I don't see why this one is that much
different.

b) As for the fact that this happens to be derived from a reference
implementation. Well the whole purpose of said reference implementain is for
others to base encoders on it. So chances are that VisualOn has a license for
the necessary aac related IP, including the reference implementation. And until
we receive word to the contrary, we are back to a) trusting upstreams licensing
statement

c) a) apparently is good enough for google to continue shipping this. If it is
good enough for google I don't see why it is not good enough for rpmfusion.

Note IANAL, but still I say we should move forward for this.

2) I was not aware of this Review Request, so in the mean time I've created my
own package for this, see bug 2470. I'll mark 2470 as a dup of this one right
after this. But I do suggest that we use my version for importing once this
package is created in pkg CVS, because:
1) It is based on the newer 1.2 version
2) It properly uses %{?_isa} for the -devel Requires on the base package
3) It does not ship a static lib, which is a clear violation of the packaging
guidelines

Regards,

Hans

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.