On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Oliver Burger wrote: > Am 20.06.2012 13:45, schrieb Simple w: >> Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a >> GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. > The issue with faac is not, that it's partly GPL, the problem is, it's > partly nonfree. > Packages that are _pure_ OpenSource and patented are going into tainted. > Packages that are non-free and not patented are going into nonfree. > But this is nonfree and patented, unless someeone can prove me and > wikipedia wrong. > So it's a no-go.
Actually we are not allowed to distribute this program without signing an agreement with them : http://www.voiceage.com/openinit_amrwb_eula.php So the only suitable repository would be the "copyright-violations" repository.
