On 2 Okt, Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
>> It is not like I am breaking any laws. If I remember right, LAME is GLP,
>> that means that I can do whatever I want as long as I make the source
>> available. The LAME project should know this more than anyone as they
>> were just a patch until just recently. (Okay, someone can knock my use of
>> recently too if you want -- recent for me).
>
> Yes, Lame is LGPL and so you are free to modify it if you make your changes
> publically available.
You only have to make your changes available, if you _distribute_ a
modified binary. If you modify it for your personal use only, you didn't
have to make the modification available.
> I will certainly sound harsh to you but I'd even suggest this extreme thing:
>
> Adding a restriction to the Lame licence stating that it's forbidden to make
> any change to libmp3lame that would prevent it from adding the "LAME" string
> into padding.
- Then LAME wouldn't be LGPLed anymore.
- This is a bad idea:
* fork(LAME)
* modify(forked_LAME) -> to bad, it may have a worse quality compared
to LAME
* print_padding(forged_LAME) -> boom (bad reputation for LAME because it
isn't allowed to change the padding)
Bye,
Alexander.
--
The best things in life are free, but the
expensive ones are still worth a look.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list archive is at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mp3encoder%40minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au/
