Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 10:13:36PM +0200, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:27:49PM +0200, Jorgen 'forcer' Schaefer wrote:
> > I'm
> > not a lawyer and i'm not sure about the phrasing of either the
> > patent law or the frauenhofer patent, but it could be worthwhile
> > to check in how far the patent disallows distribution of lame
> > (without frauenhofer code).
> This has been discussed on firstname.lastname@example.org. They came up
> with this URL: http://www.mp3licensing.com/ which states that you
> have to pay Thomson/Frauenhofer for the patents used in any mp3
> encoder. And it is nearly impossible to write a patent-free mp3
> encoder :(
Nice url, thanks. Looks like the license terms for decoders changed
since I last looked.. it's now only 50c with a $15k minimum.
Again, decoding is patented, too:
No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3
decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the
Internet for personal use of end-users.
Which means all mp3 players should be in non-free according to Policy.
It's legal to download from the Debian archive for personal use, but
it's not legal to distribute on a CD or for non-personal use.
> <ADS> If you are looking for a patent-free audio codec, try
> http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ </ADS>
Packaged for Debian yet? I would like to hear it but haven't been
motivated enough to download it.
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.