Subject: Re: clarify the lame license?
To: Alistair Crooks <>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <>
List: tech-pkg
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
> >
> >
> > 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