Tweet
Is the encoder DLL that you provide a straight-from-sourceforge compile of LAME? If not, then you need to provide the source code to the DLL. I couldn't find the source anywhere on the site.
-
-
Re: LAME and the LGPL
I'm pretty sure the included LAME is the pre-built .dll of LAME with no changes, but Spoon is the authority on this. -
Re: LAME and the LGPL
Yes there are no changes, we supply their built dll. That said we are the only company that has donated $$$$ to lame, so if we wanted a special non lgpl license I am sure we could negotiate it.Comment
-
Re: LAME and the LGPL
My understanding is that a distributor of GPL/LGPL software does not need to distribute the sources they used if they are distributing the exact same codebase as the upstream providor of the sources (though the distributor needs to indicate which upstream providor they got it from, correct?). That is, the requirement for source distribution only kicks in when the code is modified.Originally posted by perzquixle
What I'm not clear on is this: does the above exception apply to the binary redistribution of upstream binaries only, or does that also apply to recompiles (by the distributor) of the unmodified source as well?
-brendanComment
-
Re: LAME and the LGPL
If Spoon gives me a LAME binary (with or without modifications) he is required to make available the source (but only to people he suppied the binary to). This dosen't mean he has to have it on his web page, it just means he has to provide it if they ask. So if someone wanted to be a jerk, they could make him e-mail, or snail-mail a cd of the source he used (requester pays shipping). However rational people will just download it off of sourceforge.Originally posted by bhoar
Now, the LGPL makes things a bit tricky. I know, because of the number of encoders he provides, he has written an abstraction layer. If any part of the abstraction layer is in the dll, he has to provide the abstraction layer source. Because this would stop me from using any version of lame that I want.
(dBPowerAmp + Interface)<---->LAME.dll (no problem)
dBPowerAmp<---->(Lame + interface).dll (must provide source)
dBPowerAmp<---->dBLameLoader.dll<---->LAME.DLL (no problem)Comment
-
Re: LAME and the LGPL
I hope (for your sake) that this donation isn't the "MP3 License" you're selling. You need to have a deal with Fraunhofer to sell encoder licenses. Because that would be misrepresenting the product, and would be liable if someone sued me for not actually having a license. LAME dosen't pay for the licenses because Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder. It's source.Originally posted by Spoon
I apologize for getting into all this legal stuff. I'm not a letigious person, and I think all this stuff stupid. (and I certainly won't rat you out to fraunhofer) I just like the product, and don't want you getting sued to oblivion.
If you don't have a licensing agreement, then your best bet is to call it a donation. That way you aren't selling legal authority you don't have.Comment
-
Re: LAME and the LGPL
The MP3 license fees go to Thompson. I'm guessing Spoon is referring to a time in the past where he donated money to LAME.
Also, the acronym for LAME is a bit of a misnomer. While it was originally a patchset against the ISO demonstration source code, it is now a stand-alone MP3 encoder (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAME). However, since the LAME project does not distribute binaries or compiled dlls, just source, they get around the licensing requirement.Comment
-
Re: LAME and the LGPL
Look at mp3licensing.com there you can see the fully patent paying companies (illustrate is listed there).
We donated to the lame developers a year or so ago, nothing to do with the mp3 license.Comment
Comment