Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at
Bug 186909 - Review Request: libmpcdec: Musepack audio decoding library
Summary: Review Request: libmpcdec: Musepack audio decoding library
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Schwendt
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT 186912
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2006-03-27 12:52 UTC by Rex Dieter
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-04-01 18:03:56 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rex Dieter 2006-03-27 12:52:06 UTC
Spec Name or Url:
SRPM Name or Url:
Musepack is an audio compression format with a strong emphasis on high quality.
It's not lossless, but it is designed for transparency, so that you won't be
able to hear differences between the original wave file and the much smaller
MPC file.
It is based on the MPEG-1 Layer-2 / MP2 algorithms, but has rapidly developed
and vastly improved and is now at an advanced stage in which it contains
heavily optimized and patentless code.

Comment 1 Matthias Saou 2006-03-29 11:31:59 UTC
I know that the musepack page says "patentless code", but it does seem like
something quite hard to be 100% sure of, no? Do you have any more information
about that claim? I've browsed through the website, FAQ, links etc. and didn't
find anything.

Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2006-03-29 12:55:51 UTC
No, I have no further information, but, IMO, it's pretty hard to *prove* it
doesn't contain patented code, especially if the dev's claim it.  I'm of the
opinion that their claim should be believed/respected, unless/until evidence
comes to light to the contrary.

Comment 3 Michael Schwendt 2006-04-01 15:13:06 UTC
Licence is not LGPL, but BSD (aka "New BSD" or "Modified BSD"):


I've contacted upstream to seek for clarification with regard to the use
of the term "patentless code". The not-so-short response confirmed my
initial assumptions. The current code means to be "free of patents" in a
similar way like Ogg Vorbis (rpm -qi libvorbis). That statement on the
web page is quite unfortunate, as it mixed past and present and thereby
raises doubts for anybody who is not intimately familiar with the code.

Comment 4 Rex Dieter 2006-04-01 16:10:43 UTC
Thanks Michael for the clarification(s).

I'll import and change the license (not sure where I got LGPL from??)

Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2006-04-01 18:03:56 UTC
Imported, build queued.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.