Subject: Re: clarify the lame license?
To: None <hubertf@NetBSD.org>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/02/2005 16:01:36
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> pkgsrc/audio/lame has:
> LICENSE= fee-based-commercial-use
> $ make show-license
> Generic fee-based-commercial-use information not available
> See the package description (pkg_info -d lame-3.96.1nb1) for more
> But that only gives information after it is installed.
> Several months ago I found:
> Can I use LAME in my commercial program?
> Yes, you can, under the restrictions of the LGPL. The easiest
> way to do this is to:
> 1. Link to LAME as separate library (libmp3lame.a on unix or
> lame_enc.dll on windows)
> 2. Fully acknowledge that you are using LAME, and give a link
> to our web site, www.mp3dev.org
> 3. If you make modifications to LAME, you *must* release these
> these modifications back to the LAME project, under the LGPL.
> *** IMPORTANT NOTE ***
> The decoding functions provided in LAME use the mpglib decoding engine
> which is under the GPL. They may not be used by any program not released
> under the GPL unless you obtain such permission from the MPG123 project
> I also saw the email mentioning patent issue:
> Can we add a license that can be viewed easily before building package?
I found more details in lame-3.96.1/mpglib/README, frontend/parse.c, and
libmp3lame/fft.c that warn about potential patent issues.
> lame is used by a lot -- is there an alternative? (I can't tell from
> toolame and lame DESCRiptions.)
> (I am working on upgrading avidemux again and it uses lame and toolame.)
Jeremy C. Reed
technical support & remote administration