Am Mo, den 08.12.2003 schrieb Gabriel Bouvigne um 16:18: > Nils Faerber wrote: > > 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? > Exactly, but you also have to explicitely mention which lgpl libraries > your are using.
Ah OK, that might be true. > > 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 had an argumentation regarding this point with Stallman and the only > conclusion that was drawn was that he did not care about it. Really? That's strange since he used to be so pedantic about it. > Perhaps we should add an addendum to our license, but until now it seems > to fit quite well. That might be a good idea, yes. > The same patent point would also apply to Mpglib, Mad, the Linux kernel,... Indeed, and many other claimed to be free projects like mplayer and mostly all multimedia thingys :( The multimedia field seems liek a mine-field - you have to be very careful about any step because you are very probable to hit a patented spot :(( Concerning the Linux kernel it already has a specialised license that tries to cope with such problems. > Regards, CU 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
