Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I understand fully that using the name "non-US" for patent-encumbered
> >software is wrong. However, the machine pandora.debian.org is in an
> >excellent position to also host a "non-Software-Patents" section of the
> >archive, which can again be subdivide
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:10:49AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> The problem is not "patents", it's that this particular patent also
> applies in Germany, meaning we can't distribute from non-us either.
Pandora is not in .de, it's in .nl and is non-us. The issue is .de (and
the rest of the world
At 07:40 PM 9/5/00 +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
What frustrates me is that there's software that's
- useful
- free
- legal (at least for quite a few millions of people)
but not officially available for Debian.
I understand fully that using the name "non-US" for patent-encumbered
software is wrong. H
[this is debian-devel, where we don't Cc unless explicitly asked]
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 05:24:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The policy says about non-US:
>
> 2.1.5. The non-us server
>
That's in the context of "how to categorize a package", not a list of
Debian mach
>>"Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adrian> The non-US server is only for packages that include
Adrian> cryptographic program code.
Adrian> non-US has NOTHING to do with patents or other restrictions
Adrian> on the use of the packages. You are even allowed to use these
Ad
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Bart Schuller wrote:
> > The problem is not "patents", it's that this particular patent also
> > applies in Germany, meaning we can't distribute from non-us either.
>
> Yes we can, but not to or from Germany. Non-US is in The Netherlands,
> which doesn't have software patents
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:10:49AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> The problem is not "patents", it's that this particular patent also
> applies in Germany, meaning we can't distribute from non-us either.
Yes we can, but not to or from Germany. Non-US is in The Netherlands,
which doesn't have softw
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:06:38PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 05, Michael Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If it was legal for lame to be distributed with debian, I can tell you now,
> >it would be in the archive overnight. - But it isnt, so it wont.
> We have pandora for that, a
On Sep 05, Michael Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If it was legal for lame to be distributed with debian, I can tell you now,
>it would be in the archive overnight. - But it isnt, so it wont.
We have pandora for that, and I remember Wichert agreed to this use.
What still needs to be done to
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:48:36PM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> But I'd really love to see an MP3 encoder in Debian. On the
> other hand, we now have Vorbis (players, plugins for XMMS and
> encoders) on woody, so the situation is alleviated.
If it was legal for lame to be distri
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:53:32PM -0300, Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> > Of course the other problem is the code not yet being optimised (and
> > I'm not complaining but..) and bogging down my poor P133.
>
> Unfortunately, I have no experience here with older proces
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:48:36PM -0300, Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> But I'd really love to see an MP3 encoder in Debian. On the
> other hand, we now have Vorbis (players, plugins for XMMS and
> encoders) on woody, so the situation is alleviated.
I t
On Sep 04 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> lame/vorbis works alright. The problem I'm facing is lack of a good CLI
> ogg player.
See the ogg123 package in woody. It works perfectly well with
my potato.
> Of course the other problem is the code not yet being optimised (and
> I'm no
On Sep 04 2000, John O Sullivan wrote:
> I'm surprised that lame hasn't been packaged already. Was it
> discussed and rejected previously?
Well, there aren't official packages AFAIK, but, for instance,
I have a reasonably well-made package of lame 3.86beta and I
intend to s
On Sep 04 2000, Peter Allen wrote:
> All vorbis tools are very young, and as most work goes into
> libvorbis the encoder is missing some features and has a few
> unwanted features Lame is mature, and although I haven't
> checked out the ogg encoding bit of lame I guess it has more
> supported
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:35:00PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have one wav file that when vorbis-encoded does not play correctly with
> ogg123 but plays with the xmms plugin. Plus there is not any native esd
> support.
>
My memory is flakey, but I believe there *is* esd support, (liba
I have one wav file that when vorbis-encoded does not play correctly with
ogg123 but plays with the xmms plugin. Plus there is not any native esd
support.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:03:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > lame/vorbis works al
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:03:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> lame/vorbis works alright. The problem I'm facing is lack of a good CLI
> ogg player.
Whats wrong with ogg123?
--
Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
lame/vorbis works alright. The problem I'm facing is lack of a good CLI
ogg player.
Of course the other problem is the code not yet being optimised (and I'm
not complaining but..) and bogging down my poor P133. But then abcde could
go into main. ;)
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Peter Allen wrote:
> Daniel
Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:37:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
> > Lame could be compiled with vorbis support enabled and mp3 disabled,
> > perhaps, and go into unstable/main. But would we have to excise the
> > mp3-specific parts in the source package in o
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:37:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
> Lame could be compiled with vorbis support enabled and mp3 disabled,
> perhaps, and go into unstable/main. But would we have to excise the
> mp3-specific parts in the source package in order to do so?
This is somethi
Lame could be compiled with vorbis support enabled and mp3 disabled,
perhaps, and go into unstable/main. But would we have to excise the
mp3-specific parts in the source package in order to do so?
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, John O Sullivan wrote:
> > I'm su
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, John O Sullivan wrote:
> I'm surprised that lame hasn't been packaged already. Was it discussed and
> rejected previously?
You're right about the Fraunhofer problem. See the WNPP page at
http://www.debian.org/doc/prospective-packages.html (at the bottom).
Sam.
--
Samuel
LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder
I'm surprised that lame hasn't been packaged already. Was it discussed and
rejected previously?
Original source available from http://www.sulaco.org/mp3
Licence is 100% GPL'ed code since May 2000
There is a possible problem with the Fraunhoffer (sp?) patent on mp3 but I
do
24 matches
Mail list logo
