Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format. (Read 1399 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

What is the true level of "freedom" of the MP3 format at this point? I don't know much about what happens when patents for X product expire, but some say that the format became more than free: public domain, others say that only the filetype is free and not the implementation.

More importantly: is the LAME project totally and legitimately free and open source now in 2025? In this recent ticket (2024) in the official repository (https://sourceforge.net/p/lame/support-requests/59/) Alexander Leidinger says that the project does not provide binaries for "legal reasons".

What legal reasons prevent them (and anyone) from freely distributing binaries in 2024? Does this mean that the format and LAME will never be totally free and open source (fully LGPL)? Greetings.

Re: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

Reply #1 –
It's TOTALLY FREE!

You can distribute and use LAME and you can distribute MP3s if you have the copyright to the program material.

Originally there were patents and legal reasons the executable code wasn't distributed by the official project/site but I don't know why now.

The LAME website says:
Quote
The problem with all of this: many of these fundamental ideas are patented in countries which allow patents on algorithms. There is still a difference between ideas and algorithms, so it may be possible to implement this codec using different algorithms for the same ideas. It will require a significant amount of legal work to make this determination. If your beliefs do not coincide with the patent holder's beliefs, you could be sued and the courts will decide. If you dont have the money for such a law suit, then that is the end of the project!
There is a somewhat similar disclaimer on the FFmpeg website where they say they don't know if it's legal!   But FFmpeg has lots of different and newer CODECs.
 

Re: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

Reply #2 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
It's TOTALLY FREE!

You can distribute and use LAME and you can distribute MP3s if you have the copyright to the program material.

Originally there were patents and legal reasons the executable code wasn't distributed by the official project/site but I don't know why now.

The LAME website says:
Quote
The problem with all of this: many of these fundamental ideas are patented in countries which allow patents on algorithms. There is still a difference between ideas and algorithms, so it may be possible to implement this codec using different algorithms for the same ideas. It will require a significant amount of legal work to make this determination. If your beliefs do not coincide with the patent holder's beliefs, you could be sued and the courts will decide. If you dont have the money for such a law suit, then that is the end of the project!
There is a somewhat similar disclaimer on the FFmpeg website where they say they don't know if it's legal!   But FFmpeg has lots of different and newer CODECs.
But what would be the final license for the MP3 format after all its patents expired in 2017? For example, the reference implementation of Vorbis is under the BSD license (or at least I think so), well known to everyone.

The MP3 format (implementation, algorithms) is (or was) proprietary, now all its patents have expired, and now? Are there "terms and conditions" or some license that is "activated" after the patents expired? Or did everything become public domain?

Re: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

Reply #3 –
You may have probably heard it straight from the horse's mouth already (i.e, Fraunhofer itself).

Anyway. Did you read their reply to the 1st question? (assuming it wasn't you who asked it back in 2017 ).

IMO, technical nuances aside, the key takeaway is that no new terms and conditions or alike were imposed back then; it simply became patent-free for the core standard and MP3 seems to have gone the way of RSA's - a system securing online communication still part of HTTPS and how its implementation – as usual, the specific way it was put into practice not the mathematical algorithm itself – became free for everyone after its patent expired.
• Listen to the music, not the media it's on
• The older, the 'lossier'

Re: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Radagast on
But what would be the final license for the MP3 format after all its patents expired in 2017?

Formats themselves don't have licenses in the sense that software does.  If you mean a software implementation of the format, LAME for example has been LGPL for the last 25 years. 

Quote from: Radagast on
The MP3 format (implementation, algorithms) is (or was) proprietary, now all its patents have expired, and now? Are there "terms and conditions" or some license that is "activated" after the patents expired? Or did everything become public domain?

The format was proprietary in the sense that someone owned the patents needed to implement it and so they could charge fees to license those patents.  Once patents expire no one owns them, and whatever ideas they claimed are now in the public domain for anyone to use. 

Re: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

Reply #5 –
Quote from: saratoga on
The format was proprietary in the sense that someone owned the patents needed to implement it and so they could charge fees to license those patents.  Once patents expire no one owns them, and whatever ideas they claimed are now in the public domain for anyone to use. 
Oh good answer. This would then mean that LAME is entirely and solely LGPL, with no obscure restrictions or conditions outside the LGPL (though it wouldn't explain why Leidinger (who seems to be one of the core developers) says, in 2024, that the project does not provide binaries for "legal reasons").

Re: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

Reply #6 –
"legal reasons" could mean "I still don't bother to consult a lawyer for every g'damn jurisdiction in the world, when I don't have to". Why take on the compiling when others do?

Also, even if they are in safe waters, it costs $$s to defend against patent trolls - even if the MP3 format patents have expired, it doesn't guarantee that nobody will attack pieces of code, like the psy model.

Re: About the level of "freedom" of the MP3 format.

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Radagast on
Quote from: saratoga on
The format was proprietary in the sense that someone owned the patents needed to implement it and so they could charge fees to license those patents.  Once patents expire no one owns them, and whatever ideas they claimed are now in the public domain for anyone to use. 
Oh good answer. This would then mean that LAME is entirely and solely LGPL, with no obscure restrictions or conditions outside the LGPL (though it wouldn't explain why Leidinger (who seems to be one of the core developers) says, in 2024, that the project does not provide binaries for "legal reasons").

Yes, although I think you may be misunderstanding the point here.  LAME, which is distinct from the mp3 file format, has been solely and entirely LGPL since it adopted that license in 1999.  The fact that a file format might have patents covering aspects of it has no relationship whatsoever to the software license on LAME.