Re: lame (again!)

"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian > > archives, not even non-US. > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package > > IIRC your questions are addresse

Re: lame (again!)

On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 05:58:18PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > (It's bug 97198.) > > Please could someone explain why it is "bad" if Debian includes an MP3 > encoder. Potential legal problems. I say potential because lawyers have made a big deal out of it and have clearly tried to overs

Re: lame (again!)

James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Lame is already included in the Debian archives in libmp3lame_audioenc.so.0 > > in libavifile in debian/main. It's in shared library form, but appears to be > > a fully functional mpeg-1 layer 3 encoder and not just a wrapper that > > invokes a lame binary the

Re: lame (again!)

Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:14:22PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > >> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian > > > archives, not even non-US. > > > > http://www.d

Re: lame (again!)

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:14:22PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian > > archives, not even non-US. > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package > > IIRC your ques

Re: lame (again!)

>> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian > archives, not even non-US. http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package IIRC your questions are addressed there. -- Marcelo | Mustrum Ridcully did a lot for