Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?
* Ron Johnson:
>> 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.
>
> So, in addition to non-US, now we need non-EU !! :)
MP3 is so thoroughly patent-encumbered that Debian really shouldn't
encourage anyone to distribute binary packages.
The concept of non-* is a questionable one since the crypto issues has
been resolved. For a start, most US software patents have JP
equivalents, so non-US is a misnomer. What's worse, Debian doesn't
have a convincing policy with respect to software patents. This is
not really Debian's fault because the whole patent area is so murky
and lacks clear answers (even if you pay $$$ to patent lawyers), but
it's annoying nevertheless.
Reply to: