On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:26:59 +0200, Roel VdB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MC> I find this attitude stupid. Here you guys are... using an ILLEGAL >MC> product (or did you pay the legally required licensing fees?), then >MC> bitching, because someone wants to remove the branding. I don't get >MC> it. Sounds like thieves complaining they got robbed. > >?? have a little respect please. > >there is nothing illegal about the whole LAME project. FhG put out >ISO sources as a guideline, which can be modified legally. I'm not talking about the source, nor the project. You can "use" source. I was referring to the binaries, that are required to do anything useful. Those that use the binaries ARE THIEVES (including myself.) Go ahead and justify and rationalize it all you want, but go ask FhG if you owe a licensing fee to them. >LAME started out, and still is an educational project to learn about >and improve upon audio compression. Sure, I know. And MAME is also an educational project to learn how arcade machines work. ;) >Over the last few years some very >educated people have chosen to dedicate their valuable time into this >project so YOU can make decent sounding mp3's now, thanks to their >effords. I TOTALLY value there effort. LAME is amazing (same for MAME.) In fact, I want to make sure their rights are protected. This includes insuring that source is not "hijacked" by some control freaks, but instead remains within the letter and spirit of the GLP licensing terms. >Even more so, you should realise that since this year the complete ISO >source distribution is replaced by superior code made by the people >involved in this project. I know. The binaries and their output, are still in violation of patents, however. >Stupid is that some people want to make $$ on the back of the hard >work of open source developers and completely PERVERSE imo is that >some don't even have the least bit of curtosy or politeness to >aknowledge this work. Understood, but lets stick to the real world here. These companies are not only violating the terms of the GLP, but (much more importantly) they are also violating several patents (just by using the LAME source.) Giving credit to LAME is as much as saying "sue me." Now, assuming they pay the licensing fees to FhG, they still would not legally be able to use LAME, because of the GLP license. And even if GPL allowed some way for the company to license the use of LAME, just who would get that money? You? The original programmer? See, LAME is not "owned" by anyone, so there is nobody to pay. Maybe these companies are just cheap pirates, or maybe they are doing the best to give their customers the best quality, and handling the situation in the only way they see practical. >I find it appalling and offensive to see a person here shamelessly >post a patch which can only be used to try and "HIDE" the origin of >the high quality mp3 files. Why? You don't own it. Nor does ANYONE on it. Not the users, not the programmers, NOONE. That is the blessing, and the curse, of GPL and other public domain-like software. It attracts lots of people that are willing to give of their time freely, but you can't later "change their mind" and try are re-control the software. -- BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :) Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
