hn-classics/_stories/2001/11827899.md

created_at	title	url	author	points	story_text	comment_text	num_comments	story_id	story_title	story_url	parent_id	created_at_i	_tags	objectID	year
2016-06-03T02:31:52.000Z	RMS on the Ogg Vorbis license (2001)	http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3	d99kris	100			82					1464921112	story author_d99kris story_11827899	11827899	2001

Source

LWN.net: RMS on the Ogg Vorbis license

| ----- | | | |
| | |

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:23:38 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: ben@algroup.co.uk
Subject: Re: [open-source] [Fwd: [icecast-dev] Xiph.org announces Vorbis Beta 4 and the Xiph.org 

The GPL is not an end in itself; it is a measure to protect our
freedom.  In general I would rather see software copylefted, which is
one way of defending users' freedom against one particular danger.  In
the case of Ogg/Vorbis, there is a bigger danger from another
direction: the danger that people will settle on MP3 format even
though it is patented, and we won't be *allowed* to write free
encoders for the most popular format.

To overcome the inertia that supports MP3 format will require
strenuous effort.  Even if we do our utmost to encourage everyone to
replace MP3 format with Ogg/Vorbis format, it is not certain they will
do so.  Consider how long we have been trying to replace GIF with PNG.

Ordinarily, if someone decides not to use a copylefted program because
the license doesn't please him, that's his loss not ours.  But if he
rejects the Ogg/Vorbis code because of the license, and uses MP3
instead, then the problem rebounds on us--because his continued use of
MP3 may help MP3 to become and stay entrenched.

Thus, my agreement with the idea of a lax license in this special case
is just as pragmatic as my preference for the GPL in most cases.  In
both cases it is a matter of how we can attain freedom.