> I think it's great that this could be done, but there must be
> something I've missed. My understanding is that a licence would
> probably be required to keep this project out of trouble if the
> patching was removed & Lame really became an MP3 encoder. Wouldn't
> that defeat one of the main purposes of this project? If it goes to
> licencing, I guess the question must be raised- how much should have
> to be paid as insurance (against scratched CDs & LPs, & chewed tapes)
> & convenience (of being able to stream audio such as interviews, into
> a format much less clumsy than audio tape or PCM waveformats) ? And
> how would this charge be applied to LAME?
The licensing is for a compiled MP3 encoder, as far as anyone can tell.
Source distributions of lame can still be made, as it is a description of
patents more or less, not an actual encoder.
Binaries will still have to be distributed from overseas mirrors I'm sure,
but at least now potential users won't have to have a 2 step process for
compiling.
Remember, that no matter how you get lame, whether it's patched,
completely source, or binary from a european mirror, your use of lame
COULD be a violation of the patents, even if you're using it for personal
use. No one really knows. Too bad americans are so disadvantaged in this
patent arena. Everything violates someones silly patents these days :)
jack.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
