On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:26:31 (CET), Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Andres Mejia wrote:
>> On Thursday 11 November 2010 19:05:51 Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>> Anyone know the story behind the 'lame' package in the NEW queue?
>>> will it get included? did the patent stuff change? I'd like to
>>> package some stuff that depends on it.
>> I haven't heard anything new related to lame. There's only the issue
>> with inconsistency as far as what license terms lame is distributed
>> under. All sources have standard LGPL header. A file named 'LICENSE'
>> says lame is under LGPL. There is, however, a README file that
>> includes 2 extra terms on top of the LGPL.
>> Other than that, packages in the NEW queue are getting low priority
>> anyway because of work underway to deliver a new release of Debian.
> So is there no longer a patent issue with LAME? I ask because there are
> some Pd libraries that use LAME and it would be nice to have them in
I'd suggest to wait for lame to be ACCEPTED or REJECTED. ftp-master
seems to consider it unredistributable licensewise. Or port the pd-libs
to libavcodec and hope that someone finally finishes Michael's mp3
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list