2012/8/17 Nikos Roussos :
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>
> On 08/16/2012 05:27 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>> I happened to notice that twolame is currently on rpmfusion. Is there a
>> legal reason for that?
>>
>> twolame is an MP2 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer II) encoder (not mp3),
2012/8/17 Nikos Roussos :
> Yes, I assumed so. I'm mostly asking why, because it seems that there is no
> patent infringement issue with twolame.
IANAL but I'd like to remind that is' extremely dangerous and stupid
to ask for the list of possible infringing patents publicly. Not sure
about US law
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 05:27 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> > I happened to notice that twolame is currently on rpmfusion. Is there a
> > legal reason for that?
> >
> > twolame is an MP2 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer II) encoder (not mp3), which seems
> > to be a
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Nikos Roussos
wrote:
> I happened to notice that twolame is currently on rpmfusion. Is there a
> legal reason for that?
>
> twolame is an MP2 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer II) encoder (not mp3), which seems to
> be a free (as free of patents) codec. There was a similar discu
On 08/16/2012 05:27 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> I happened to notice that twolame is currently on rpmfusion. Is there a
> legal reason for that?
>
> twolame is an MP2 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer II) encoder (not mp3), which seems
> to be a free (as free of patents) codec. There was a similar discussion
> o
I happened to notice that twolame is currently on rpmfusion. Is there a
legal reason for that?
twolame is an MP2 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer II) encoder (not mp3), which seems
to be a free (as free of patents) codec. There was a similar discussion
on Debian and they concluded that it's ok to have it on th
