On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Mark Taylor wrote:
> Another philisophical topic:
>
> What do you think of allowing the use of LAME in commercial products?
Using lame. Hmm.
> I've had two requests to release LAME under the LGPL (lesser GPL)
> which would allow a freedom-restricting non-GPL app to use the LAME
> encoding engine. My feeling is that neither I nor Mike have the
> authority to change the licence since many people have submitted code
> specifically under the GPL.
> However, I think that one of our goals should be to make mp3 as freely
> availabe and popular as possible, which will make it harder for some
> closed format to take over. And with this in mind it might be good to
> allow commercial packages to use LAME. In some countries you would still
> have to license the encoding patents, so I dont know if you could actually
> save any money by going with LAME instead of Xing.
>
> We could also require something like a donation to the FSF.
Why not allow free programs to link lame, and commercial apps must use
lame via exec() or the OS'es codec api.
I think the LGPL would give too much freedom of no-code-enhancment to
vendors.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
