Subject: Re: clarify the lame license?
To: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
From: Alistair Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/03/2005 16:15:08
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 09:10:17AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> But, certainly whatever info is in the distribution should be pulled
> into the license file, so people can make their own decisions.
> LICENSE= fee-based-commercial-use
> This doesn't make sense. Patents don't distinguish between commercial
> and non-commercial use, and I didn't see anything on the web when
> looking just now that indicates a royalty-free license is granted for
> noncommercial use of encoding.
In pkgsrc, when dealing with licensing issues, we err on the side of
cvs annotate tells me:
1.28 (wiz 27-Aug-03): LICENSE= fee-based-commercial-use
and the log entry is:
> revision 1.28
> date: 2003/08/27 08:32:54; author: wiz; state: Exp; lines: +3 -1
> While lame may be under the GPL, using it or other mp3 software in
> commercial (and perhaps other) projects is only allowed under a license, see
> Restore LICENSE line.