codec support

[Mathieu Charron]

So, that mean that if you have, or had, a windows licence you have the right
to download them and install them on a Linux machine?
Because I dual box from Ubuntu to Windows (2 PC + KVM), so I'm legal having
w32codecs on my linux PC?

Mathieu

On 8/3/06, Don Kelly <karfai at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/3/06, Hubert Figuiere <hub at figuiere.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 19:49, Darryl Moore wrote:
> > > yes, well those are just the ones I mean. I'm still not exactly sure
> > > about the status of w32codec though. I've seen some sites which insist
> > > they are a direct copy. Others which say they are not. Does source
> code
> > > exist somewhere? That would be definitive. If you have any good
> > > background on this I'd appreciate a link or two.
> >
> > win32codecs are the Windows binary DLL (dynamic shared objects) copied
> > verbatim. IMHO they represent a license violation of said package they
> have
> > been extracted from.
> >
>
> In fact, if you download the codec package from Microsoft's site.  The
> included README file states that you must have a "validly licensed
> copy of the client OS software".  I dug into this when writing a blog
> post about CBC's use of WIndows Media Player formats:
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2353.
>
> Don Kelly/
>
> --
> Don Kelly
> karfai [AT] gmail.com
> http://shaolin.dyndns.org/index.html
> http://beyondtheedge.blogspot.com
>
> --
> ubuntu-ca mailing list
> ubuntu-ca at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ca
>



-- 
Lumiere: "We, girls, should be elegant"
{Kiddy Grade}
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-ca/attachments/20060803/e9ac1710/attachment.html>