On 13 Nov, M. Alexander Broadhead wrote:
>> Just an idea, don't know if this is possible or accepted by involved
>> parties:
>> What about putting the IS code under some kind of Mozilla
>> lizence, is
>> this possible (mixing both lizences in one file, restricting it to a
>> specific part of it (e.g. the IS part))?
>> This way the source for IS would be usable for other people
>> withhin the
>> LGPL, and ClearBand would be able to legally adopt
>> improvements in the
>> IS code.
>
> A good idea, I think, but a little complicated. I'd probably just add in
> the code to LAME, and then add any improvements I came up with from the
> ClearBand path. And if someone actually came up with a better (patentable)
> algorithm, I'd be up a creek? I really don't know where the line is drawn
What does this proverb mean?
> on the (L)GPL. It clearly protects the source and executables, but does it
> protect algorithms as well? Even if the algortihms are simply plugging in
> standard CS methods to new problems? I don't know.
No, the GPL only protects the given implementation, you can't do a cut &
paste. But if you do a clean room implementation (ask someone to explain
the used algorithm to you and write code based on this on your own),
nobody can complain.
>> As already said, just an idea... (with interesting possibilities).
>
> I may play with this some in the near future. I'll see if I come up with
> anything, and if I can find the time to come up to speed with the relevant
> sections of LAME, which is sure to take longer than actually adding the new
> code.
I know what you mean. :-(
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Loose bits sink chips.
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
