Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 05:39:59PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 03:34:57PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> > 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.
> According to Frauenhofer, or someone else? I've read that the patents
> don't apply to decoding, and Frauenhofer isn't the most trustworthy
> source on the matter.
According to Thomson Multimedia (the silent half of the duo that created
mp3.. Fraunhoffer threatens and sues at the drop of the hat... Thomson
is a lot slower).
Or is "well, I think your patent claim is doody!" sufficient to ignore
it and put claimed infringing items into main? Is that a legal risk
Debian is willing to take? On whose word is "that patent is doody"
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.