Subject: Re: clarify the lame license?
To: Alistair Crooks <email@example.com>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/03/2005 09:08:25
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > LICENSE= fee-based-commercial-use
> > 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
> > http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developer.html#5
> > Restore LICENSE line.
I had pointed to that in another email.
The main problem is that the pkgsrc user can't quickly know. Even the
show-license target seems wrong: it suggests packaging it up and then
running pkg_info -d to figure it out.
I'll fix part of the problem by uploading a license/lame-license based on
all the notes I found. And then fix the LICENSE line to use lame-license
Jeremy C. Reed
open source, Unix, *BSD, Linux training