Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?
* William Ballard:
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 07:04:22PM -0800, james wrote:
>> Why can't lame be packaged in the non-free section?
>
> It's patent-encumbered; all mp3 software is.
Yet mpg321 is in main. This comes from the misunderstanding that no
royalties are required for decoders (as opposed to encoders). This is
not true, though.
The MP3 situtation is even worse, there are two organizations holding
pools of essential patents on MP3, and you need separate licenses from
both. One organization is enforcing its patents actively against
redistributors of MP3 players in Europe.
Reply to: