Thomson's people are talking out their arses trying to cover this up:
Yeah, they never have, and their licensing page reflected that - until the exception there was removed. I suspect that the focus on hardware players is pure misdirection, because hardware player manufacturers do not need to obtain a decoder license unless they're developing their own decoding hardware/software - the decoder licenses are paid for by the companies that manufacture the various decoder chips.
Yeah, I'm sure those publicity-thirsty Vorbis fanatics found some way to hack into mp3licensing.com and make the change, right? As it stands, the authoritative site describing MP3 patent licensing terms does not prominently mention any exemption for freely distributed software decoders. Thomson's PR reps can make all the assurances that they want, but their words are pretty much meaningless because it's not their decision.
Yeah, they never have, and their licensing page reflected that - until the exception there was removed. I suspect that the focus on hardware players is pure misdirection, because hardware player manufacturers do not need to obtain a decoder license unless they're developing their own decoding hardware/software - the decoder licenses are paid for by the companies that manufacture the various decoder chips.
Yeah, I'm sure those publicity-thirsty Vorbis fanatics found some way to hack into mp3licensing.com and make the change, right? As it stands, the authoritative site describing MP3 patent licensing terms does not prominently mention any exemption for freely distributed software decoders. Thomson's PR reps can make all the assurances that they want, but their words are pretty much meaningless because it's not their decision.
