On Dec 17, 2005 at 18:48, Simo Kauppi praised the llamas by saying: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:21:41PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > No, you have to _remove_ the offending code. Not only "disable it at > > build-time", but not ship it at all, also not in the > > source. Distributing infringing source code, not only infringing > > binaries, is an infringement to the patent. (The right mailing list > > for discussing this particular point is debian-legal@lists.debian.org) > > Sorry for being a little vague. What I meant was that it uses liblame > library by default and that dependency can be disabled at build time. > > My understanding is that there is no offending code in the swftools > itself (at least I haven't noticed any, but I have to double check :) > > So, by disabling lame, it compiles and runs without users needing to > install any non-free software (the liblame library). The only drawback > is, that two of its binaries, avi2swf and wav2swf, cannot be used. Since > it has many other useful tools, I would like to see a Debian package > from it anyway. > The obvious solution would be something that ldopened liblame, so a user could install liblame if they wanted and get the functionality that they would have done if it was compiled in now. I believe that would be allowed in Debian, as we wouldn't be distributing anything patent-encumbered.
-- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
