On 06-Oct 01:34, Artemis3 wrote: > Hi Ross! > > On Fri, 05 Oct 2001, Ross Levis wrote: > > > jeremy brand wrote: > > > > >It is quite offensive when people on this list all guess my intentions for > > >writing such a patch. Nobody has got it right yet, even after I told this > > >list my intentions in some of the first few emails on this thread. It > > >seems very convenient to forget the facts, doesn't it! > > > > I'm sure I've read all the messages on this thread but I am still to > > learn the logical reason to remove the text from frame padding. As > > mentioned before, the text doesn't decrease quality or add any length to > > the file. The only use it has is to attempt to hide the fact that an > > MP3 was created by LAME. I would like to hear what advantage this has > > to anyone other than criminals. > > > > There is no logical reason. He implies its an "aestethical" > (cosmetic) reason. Side effect: will make LGPL violations > easier. Recommended course of action: Ignore.
It would also allow truly "blind" comparisons of mp3 files. But, the developers with cvs access have already said that this "feature" isn't going to be included. Wise, I think, as I don't think anyone here wants the patent holders to really try to shut down development on LAME. I think they would if LAME noticed used in large amounts by companies that don't want to pay the royalties to distribute commercial encoders. Sometimes, even when you want a thread to die, it just wont. :) Thomas
msg00287/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
