Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Nathan E Norman wrote:

> > What has this to do with non-US?
> > 
> > non-free: it isn't free, e.g. uses patented algorithms like LZW or IDEA
> 
> No, non-free is stuff that you can't charge money for distributing, or
> has other weird licensing issues like no commercial use.  Most
> everything in non-free can't be put on a CD and sold.
> 
> Stuff that can't be distributed can't go in non-free, since non-free
> is distributed via network at the very least.


Policy section 2.1.4 says:

     `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG or
     which are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their
     distribution problematic.

     All packages in `non-free' must be electronically distributable
     across international borders.


Note: The first section mentions patents explicitely.

> > non-US: you are allowed to use it in both the US and outside, but you
> >         aren't allowed to export it from the US because it contains
> >         cryptographic code
> 
> Also contains patent-encumbered code that is illegal to distribute
> from within the US.
> 
> Since lame infringes on a German patent, it can't go in non-us either.

Policy section 2.1.5 says:

     Some programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on the
     "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.

     This applies only to packages which contain cryptographic code.  A
     package containing a program with an interface to a cryptographic
     program or a program that's dynamically linked against a
     cryptographic
     library can be distributed if it is capable of running without the
     cryptography library or program.



Note: "This applies only to packages which contain cryptographic code."

cu,
Adrian

-- 
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
                -- Mahatma Ghandi