Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
>
> What do you mean ?? There are lots of packages included in debian in source
> form ...
Well, Andrew is wrong (AFAIK). Patent claims don't distinguish between
source and binary. lame does include only GPL code, so the patent is
the only problem.
OTOH, isn't a license just required for *using* software that falls
under the patent -- in contrast to just distributing it? How is
distributing lame different from distributing implementations of RSA
one year ago? We did that.
--
Robbe
signature.ng
