Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:et4oa5-rhh.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:reply_in_group-20E25E.19092711032008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>
>>> (2) There are numerous free software implementations of MP3
>>> available.
>>
>> But the point here is that the resolution does not talk about MP3 -
>> it is about MP-2.
>>
>
> Which is or is not patent encumbered?
Have you tried to find this answer yourself? You can get the ISO MPEG-2
standard from the ISO website.
Any ISO-standard has to conform to the ISO/IEC IPR policies which
effectively means that any patents and IPR should be provided either as
RAND or RAND with no royalties. There is no difference here in MPEG-2,
OOXML nor ODF.
This was actually one of the things we talked a great deal about in Geneva
when we drafted the proposal. One of the early editions of the proposal had
ogg/Vorbis in the text as suggested audio format, but it was removed since
some countries were worried about referring to formats/techniques outside
of recognized standardisation organisations.
Do note as well, as I have already pointed out, that the word "should" in
the accepted proposal means that implementing e.g. ISO MPEG-2 is only a
suggestion - it is not a requirement.
:o)
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
