On 3 Okt, Brent Geery wrote:
I just want to clarify some facts.
>>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
(Note: I'm not a lawyer)
The binaries aren't illegal. The distribution of the binaries without a
license is illegal.
And you aren't a thief if you _use_ the binary, but you violate some
intellectual propperty laws if you _distribute_ the binary.
>>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.
LAME is LGPL'ed, not GPL'ed.
>>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.
In germany (officially) software patents didn't exist (unfortunally
there are some software patents, and alot of big companies try to
convince the government to allow them officially). Because LAME didn't
uses dedicated encoding hardware and even runs on old x86 CPUs, nobody
would win a lawsuit if I would distribute a LAME binary here in gemany
only. I'm even allowed to reingeneer if I want to.
>>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.
But because LAME is licensed to the LGPL, they can legally use LAME if
they use the DLL or some kind of plugin for which they provide the
source.
> 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.
It is perfectly legal to get money even for GPLed software. Look at suse
or redhat, they sell GPLed software. The spirit of the GPL isn't about
preventing the sale of software.
It is the users decission if he want's to spend money for GPLed
software.
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
_______________________________________________
mp3encoder mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
