Am Mo, den 08.12.2003 schrieb Gabriel Bouvigne um 13:00: > > I think the app is probabry violating LGPL of mpglib, but I wonder > > it violates that of LAME... very suspectable, but I cannot assert. > .... > I am writing them a mail asking for clarification about this.
Umm... I might be wrong (and if, please excuse) but isn't LGPL exactly for the purpose of being able to link against LGPL'ed works and not violating the LGPL license, be it statically or dynamically? Else all statically linked Linux binaries (against static version of GLIBC which is LGPL) for example would also violate the LGPL... and I doubt this. Nonetheless I think that Lame itself is in violation of the GPL and LGPL since GPL and LGPL explicetly forbid patented technologies under the terms of the LGPL or GPL. And since there is no doubt in the fact that the MP3 technology is patented I even think that applying the GPL or LGPL to Lame is not possible at all - at least in a unaltered version. We would have to change the license to be like the Gnu license but without reference to it and without the paragraph that forbids patented code. Please understand me right - I am the least person to fight for patents or against the Gnu license, but I see a major problem here. Because since there is (at least to my knowledge) a violation of Lame concerning the Gnu license another one could possibly argue that if Lame violates the license then the license does not apply at all and the code becomes literally freeware without license - worst case scenario. So before contacting companies about possible Lame license infringements I would double check if the license that we think applies to Lame does indeed apply the way we think... Regards nils faerber -- kernel concepts Tel: +49-271-771091-12 Dreisbachstr. 24 Fax: +49-271-771091-19 D-57250 Netphen D1 : +49-170-2729106 -- _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
