On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:07:49 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 12.11.2010 08:09, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: >> 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 > > Is this because of the two extra clauses that Andres mentioned? IMHO > they do only add more freedom (clause 1) and ensure that LAME is not > used to enforce patents (clause 2).
The second would be compatible with GPLv3, but not GPLv2. lame does not grant an upgrade to GPLv3. >> to libavcodec and hope that someone finally finishes Michael's mp3 >> encoder. > > Yes, but LAMe is still *the* OSS MP3 encoder. For example, I remember > that libavcodec implementations of AAC encoding and decoding suffered > from regressions if compared to FAAC/FAAD2. FAAD is a pure decoder. FAAC is also rather questionable licensewise, and contains quite some material from the reference aac implementation. cf. also with this bug: https://launchpad.net/bugs/374900 -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers