On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Simple w wrote: > 2012/6/20 Oliver Burger <[email protected]>: > > Am 20.06.2012 12:45, schrieb Simple w: > > > >> about faac was already discussed, but i dont understand why amrwb > >> wasnt packaged so that apps can be build against it, it exists in svn, > >> could anyone please clarify? > >> > >> I see that amrwd doesnt have the same problems that faac has, so it > >> could easily go to the non-free repository since its under a > >> commercial license. > > > > According to wikipedia it's patented as well. So it's the same issue. > > Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a > GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository.
It seems the license doesn't allow distribution of compiled versions, so it's not suitable for nonfree repository.
