Eric Van Buggenhaut <eric@eric.ath.cx> writes: > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't > > be legally redistributed in binary form. > > What do you mean ?? There are lots of packages included in debian in source > form ... Well, Andrew is wrong (AFAIK). Patent claims don't distinguish between source and binary. lame does include only GPL code, so the patent is the only problem. OTOH, isn't a license just required for *using* software that falls under the patent -- in contrast to just distributing it? How is distributing lame different from distributing implementations of RSA one year ago? We did that. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature