On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2003-02-05T16:07:12Z, Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since it would have an mp3 encoder, it couldn't possibly be under GPL, > > since mp3 encoders are patent-encumbered. > > Not true. LAME is released under the GPL - it was written from scratch: > > http://lame.sourceforge.net/
It is not relevant to a patent infringement claim whether a work was written from scratch. The GPL says: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. That of course doesn't prevent the holders of LAME's copyright from releasing it under the GPL, since the copyright holders are not themselves bound by the terms of the licence, but if there is an applicable patent without free licensing then that means nobody else can legally redistribute LAME under the terms of the GPL. (Disclaimer: I haven't kept up with the circumstances surrounding MP3 encoders in detail. This is just my understanding of the law, although I'm not a lawyer.) -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]