Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-13 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
"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!)

2001-05-13 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
"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 address

Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread James Troup
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!)

2001-05-11 Thread Brian Ristuccia
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!)

2001-05-11 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
>> 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

Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread James Troup
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.

Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread Brian Ristuccia
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 que

Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
>> 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

lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread Viral
Hi all, I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian archives, not even non-US. Firstly, the lame license is LGPL as of version 3.88. The psycho-acoustic model used in LAME is also GPLed (or LGPLed). I believe its not the same as the one patented by the Fraunhofer I

lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread Viral
Hi all, I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian archives, not even non-US. Firstly, the lame license is LGPL as of version 3.88. The psycho-acoustic model used in LAME is also GPLed (or LGPLed). I believe its not the same as the one patented by the Fraunhofer