I'm sorry, but changing the terms of LAME's license would require to have
everyone involved to agree about.
Considering, that a lot of those people aren't in contact with this
project anymore, I doubt that is even possible.
Further, you would have to do patent research in those countries, where
you would want to sell your product.
> REPLY at http://sourceforge.net/u/anthony-myatt/profile/send_message >
> Hi Robert,
> I am a twenty-two year old app developer based in country New South
> Wales, Australia and am wanting to use the LAME library in a commercial
> iOS >app of mine.
> Unfortunately the terms of the LGPL license require that the library be
> included as a dynamic library, something that the iOS platform doesn’t
> As an active developer of LAME would you be able to grant me an
> exception to the LGPL terms?
> I’d be more than happy to discuss details with you and would of course
> still include the LGPL license and a link to the source code in my app.
> I appreciate you taking the time to read my email and I look forward to
> hearing from you.
> Kind regards,
> Anthony Myatt
> This message was sent to you via the SourceForge web mail form.
> Replying to this email will not work, please send a message to AMyatt at
you are right, technically he can statically link LGPL code.
But I don't know how practical it is, to provide necessary
object code to let an end user re-link his application with
some newer version of a LGPL'ed library.
- Or provide everything that allow the user to relink the
application with a different version of the LGPL source code.
In this case the other requirements are the same as if it was
+ dynamically linked:
- LGPL code stays LGPL, you can keep the proprietary code proprietary.
> Hello Robert,
> Anthony seems to be under the impression that within the terms of the
> LGPL licence, he cannot statically link to the LAME library. Correct me
> if I'm wrong, but I didn't think any such restriction existed.