At 12:25 PM 10/15/99 +0200, Gerhard Wesp wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 06:27:01PM +0200, Nils Faerber wrote:
>> First of all since all parts of Lame are GPL the usage of header files
>> included ofr use of Lame as any sort of DLL for other programs will force
>
> let me cite the gpl:
>
>``If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>sections when you distribute them as separate works.''
>
> so i'd advise your german company to just distribute lame as a ``separate
>work'' together with the download software, which should arguably be
>independent of the encoder. separate does _not_ mean that lame has to
>be on a different cd!
>
> to encode, just call lame from a shell script or via system(3).
>should be trivial, eh?
This might be hard to do, if they are implementing Lame in a DSP/embedded
application.
Don't know if this is the case for the German company though..
How does the mp3 license work? Can you just get a licence and distribute
Lame with full source?
/jp (Who thinks it would be great if Lame became more used, esp. if
BladeEnc(LGPL:ed) is the other alternative ;))
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
