Re: Exception to LGPL license for LAME

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Exception to LGPL license for LAME

Robert Hegemann
Hello Anthony,

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.

http://mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html

Ciao Robert


Am 05.03.2014, 23:15 Uhr, schrieb <[hidden email]>:

>
> 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  
> allow.
>
> 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  
> http://sourceforge.net/u/anthony-myatt/profile/send_message
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce.
With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works.
Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and the
freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Lame-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lame-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Exception to LGPL license for LAME

Robert Hegemann
Hi John,

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.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10130143/gpl-lgpl-and-static-linking

* Proprietary Source code + LGPL Source code

+ statically linked:

        - Either you must release both parts as LGPL.

        - 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.

+ dynamically linked:

         - LGPL code stays LGPL, you can keep the proprietary code proprietary.


Ciao Robert

Am 06.03.2014, 13:03 Uhr, schrieb John Edwards  
<[hidden email]>:

> 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.
>
> regards
>
> John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce.
With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works.
Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and the
freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Lame-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lame-dev