LAME (Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder)

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Andres Mejia <mcitadel@...> wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Mark Taylor <mt@...> wrote:
>> Hi Andres,
>>
>> I'd be happy to just delete this text from the README.
>>
>> Not sure if my sourceforge account will still work.  It would be
>> quicker one of the other developers was willing to remove this text?
>> Hence I'm forwarding to lame-dev@....
>>
>> Mark
>
> Ok. Thank you very much!
>
> Also, I'm going to assume I can remove this text from the README in
> the tarballs for any of the releases from LAME.

Before I rush to this, let me say that I hope nobody minds if I remove
this text from the tarball of LAME that will be redistributed
(hopefully) in Debian. Of course if anyone has objections, feel free
to raise them.

>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:50 AM,  <ceros7@...> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to bother you. I'm sure you have already been
>>> contacted with regards to LAME and the modifications you
>>> made to its license over 10 years ago. There's a possibility
>>> that LAME can be redistributed alongside Debian (despite the
>>> patent issues with LAME) if a certain issue is resolved.
>>> This issue is with regards to the modifications you
>>> introduced in the README file. The modifications are
>>> repeated below.
>>>
>>> This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
>>> (LGPL, see http://www.gnu.org) with the following modification:
>>>
>>> 1. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a
>>> patent license,
>>>   and you obtain a patent license, you may distribute LAME
>>> even though
>>>   redistribution of LAME may also require a patent license.
>>>
>>> 2. You agree not to enforce any patent claims for any aspect of
>>>   MPEG audio compression, or any other techniques contained in
>>>   the LAME source code.
>>>
>>> The issue is mainly with the second modification which
>>> contradicts the terms of the LGPL which states.
>>>
>>> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
>>> recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
>>>
>>> This contradiction makes LAME undistributable (see [1] and [2]).
>>>
>>> I have sent a message to the Free Software Foundation and
>>> the Software Freedom Law Center in regards to this issue
>>> (see [3]). So far I haven't received a response from either
>>> of them. I have received a response from one of the current
>>> LAME developers however (I had CC'd the lame-dev mailing
>>> list). Since the time these extra restrictions were
>>> introduced, no other file was updated to add these
>>> restrictions. Thus there is confusion as to whether LAME is
>>> still licensed solely under LGPL or if these modifications
>>> to the LGPL which are stated in the README file also apply.
>>> The current LAME developers would like to remove those extra
>>> restrictions if they knew for sure that those restrictions
>>> only applied to the README or at least any file that doesn't
>>> contain any licensing information.
>>>
>>> Since you were the only person to introduce these changes,
>>> this is why I am sending you this lengthy message via
>>> sourceforge.net's messaging system. If you agree to have
>>> these modifications to the LGPL dropped for LAME, could you
>>> send a message to the current LAME developers allowing them
>>> to drop the modifications? You could also send me a message
>>> and I will route the message to them (I am not a LAME
>>> developer).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andres Mejia
>>> Email: mcitadel@...
>>>
>>> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/08/msg00049.html
>>> 2.
>>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2011-April/017869.html
>>> 3.
>>> https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=201105030019.30226.mcitadel%40gmail.com&forum_name=lame-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been sent to you, a registered SourceForge.net user,
>>> by another site user, through the SourceForge.net site.  This message
>>> has been delivered to your SourceForge.net mail alias.  You may reply
>>> to this message using the "Reply" feature of your email client, or
>>> using the messaging facility of SourceForge.net at:
>>> https://sourceforge.net/sendmessage.php?touser=1387939
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Again, thank you very much. :-)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Andres Mejia
>



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

Hi Andres,

I'd be happy to just delete this text from the README.

Not sure if my sourceforge account will still work.  It would be
quicker one of the other developers was willing to remove this text?
Hence I'm forwarding to lame-dev@....

Mark


On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:50 AM,  <ceros7@...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm sorry to bother you. I'm sure you have already been
> contacted with regards to LAME and the modifications you
> made to its license over 10 years ago. There's a possibility
> that LAME can be redistributed alongside Debian (despite the
> patent issues with LAME) if a certain issue is resolved.
> This issue is with regards to the modifications you
> introduced in the README file. The modifications are
> repeated below.
>
> This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
> (LGPL, see http://www.gnu.org) with the following modification:
>
> 1. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a
> patent license,
>   and you obtain a patent license, you may distribute LAME
> even though
>   redistribution of LAME may also require a patent license.
>
> 2. You agree not to enforce any patent claims for any aspect of
>   MPEG audio compression, or any other techniques contained in
>   the LAME source code.
>
> The issue is mainly with the second modification which
> contradicts the terms of the LGPL which states.
>
> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
> recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
>
> This contradiction makes LAME undistributable (see [1] and [2]).
>
> I have sent a message to the Free Software Foundation and
> the Software Freedom Law Center in regards to this issue
> (see [3]). So far I haven't received a response from either
> of them. I have received a response from one of the current
> LAME developers however (I had CC'd the lame-dev mailing
> list). Since the time these extra restrictions were
> introduced, no other file was updated to add these
> restrictions. Thus there is confusion as to whether LAME is
> still licensed solely under LGPL or if these modifications
> to the LGPL which are stated in the README file also apply.
> The current LAME developers would like to remove those extra
> restrictions if they knew for sure that those restrictions
> only applied to the README or at least any file that doesn't
> contain any licensing information.
>
> Since you were the only person to introduce these changes,
> this is why I am sending you this lengthy message via
> sourceforge.net's messaging system. If you agree to have
> these modifications to the LGPL dropped for LAME, could you
> send a message to the current LAME developers allowing them
> to drop the modifications? You could also send me a message
> and I will route the message to them (I am not a LAME
> developer).
>
> Regards,
> Andres Mejia
> Email: mcitadel@...
>
> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/08/msg00049.html
> 2.
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2011-April/017869.html
> 3.
> https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=201105030019.30226.mcitadel%40gmail.com&forum_name=lame-dev
>
> --
> This message has been sent to you, a registered SourceForge.net user,
> by another site user, through the SourceForge.net site.  This message
> has been delivered to your SourceForge.net mail alias.  You may reply
> to this message using the "Reply" feature of your email client, or
> using the messaging facility of SourceForge.net at:
> https://sourceforge.net/sendmessage.php?touser=1387939
>
>

Hi, Mark.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 14:39, Mark Taylor <mt@...> wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
> I'd be happy to just delete this text from the README.
>
> Not sure if my sourceforge account will still work.  It would be
> quicker one of the other developers was willing to remove this text?
> Hence I'm forwarding to lame-dev@....
>
> Mark

I can do that for you (if Robert doesn't beat me to it).


Regards,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Hi there.

2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
> I can do that for you (if Robert doesn't beat me to it).

Just for the record:

    http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?r1=1.15&r2=1.16


Regards,

P.S.: I would love to see this in Debian. May I co-maintain it?

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
> Hi there.
>
> 2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
>> I can do that for you (if Robert doesn't beat me to it).
>
> Just for the record:
>
>    http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?r1=1.15&r2=1.16
>
>
> Regards,
>
> P.S.: I would love to see this in Debian. May I co-maintain it?
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
> http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>

Thank you very much!

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
> Hi there.
>
> 2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
>> I can do that for you (if Robert doesn't beat me to it).
>
> Just for the record:
>
>    http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?r1=1.15&r2=1.16
>
>
> Regards,
>
> P.S.: I would love to see this in Debian. May I co-maintain it?

Oh forgot to reply to this. Yes, your help is more than welcome.

> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
> http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
> Hi there.
>
> 2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
>> I can do that for you (if Robert doesn't beat me to it).
>
> Just for the record:
>
>    http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?r1=1.15&r2=1.16

I just noticed that the first text was left intact. I made it clear I
was referring to both modifications when I sent my original message to
Mark. I'm certain he meant for both modifications to be deleted.

In any case, the first text doesn't seem to provide any additional
permissions or restrictions to what is already imposed by the LGPL2.
Would you mind removing this modification as well?

>
> Regards,
>
> P.S.: I would love to see this in Debian. May I co-maintain it?
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
> http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Andres Mejia <mcitadel@...> wrote:
> 2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
>> Hi there.
>>
>> 2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
>>> I can do that for you (if Robert doesn't beat me to it).
>>
>> Just for the record:
>>
>>    http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?r1=1.15&r2=1.16
>
> I just noticed that the first text was left intact. I made it clear I
> was referring to both modifications when I sent my original message to
> Mark. I'm certain he meant for both modifications to be deleted.
>
> In any case, the first text doesn't seem to provide any additional
> permissions or restrictions to what is already imposed by the LGPL2.
> Would you mind removing this modification as well?
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> P.S.: I would love to see this in Debian. May I co-maintain it?
>>
>> --
>> Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
>> http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
>> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Andres Mejia
>

Just for record keeping purposes, here is the original message I had
sent to Mark through the sourceforge.net messaging service.

Hello,

I'm sorry to bother you. I'm sure you have already been
contacted with regards to LAME and the modifications you
made to its license over 10 years ago. There's a possibility
that LAME can be redistributed alongside Debian (despite the
patent issues with LAME) if a certain issue is resolved.
This issue is with regards to the modifications you
introduced in the README file. The modifications are
repeated below.

This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
(LGPL, see http://www.gnu.org) with the following modification:

1. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a
patent license,
   and you obtain a patent license, you may distribute LAME
even though
   redistribution of LAME may also require a patent license.

2. You agree not to enforce any patent claims for any aspect of
   MPEG audio compression, or any other techniques contained in
   the LAME source code.

The issue is mainly with the second modification which
contradicts the terms of the LGPL which states.

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

This contradiction makes LAME undistributable (see [1] and [2]).

I have sent a message to the Free Software Foundation and
the Software Freedom Law Center in regards to this issue
(see [3]). So far I haven't received a response from either
of them. I have received a response from one of the current
LAME developers however (I had CC'd the lame-dev mailing
list). Since the time these extra restrictions were
introduced, no other file was updated to add these
restrictions. Thus there is confusion as to whether LAME is
still licensed solely under LGPL or if these modifications
to the LGPL which are stated in the README file also apply.
The current LAME developers would like to remove those extra
restrictions if they knew for sure that those restrictions
only applied to the README or at least any file that doesn't
contain any licensing information.

Since you were the only person to introduce these changes,
this is why I am sending you this lengthy message via
sourceforge.net's messaging system. If you agree to have
these modifications to the LGPL dropped for LAME, could you
send a message to the current LAME developers allowing them
to drop the modifications? You could also send me a message
and I will route the message to them (I am not a LAME
developer).

Regards,
Andres Mejia
Email: mcitadel@...

1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/08/msg00049.html
2.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2011-April/017869.html
3.
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=201105030019.30226.mcitadel%40gmail.com&forum_name=lame-dev

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
> Hi there.
>
> I am consolidating the replies here. I hope you don't mind.
>
> On May 06 2011, Andres Mejia wrote:
>> 2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
>> > Just for the record:
>> >
>> > http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?r1=1.15&r2=1.16
>>
>> I just noticed that the first text was left intact. I made it clear I
>> was referring to both modifications when I sent my original message to
>> Mark. I'm certain he meant for both modifications to be deleted.
>>
>> In any case, the first text doesn't seem to provide any additional
>> permissions or restrictions to what is already imposed by the LGPL2.
>> Would you mind removing this modification as well?
>
> I don't mind, but I would like to, at least, point that people should know
> that, if they have purchased a patent license (in countries where this
> exist), then they should be aware that they may not redistribute the
> software.
>
> I, thus, propose the draft of a patch as attached for others to review
> (Mark, Robert, Gabriel, Takehiro, Alexander?).
>
>> > P.S.: I would love to see this in Debian. May I co-maintain it?
>>
>> Oh forgot to reply to this. Yes, your help is more than welcome.
>
> Thanks. I think that this part of the conversation we can move to an
> appropriate list on Debian-stuff (I don't know what the appropriate one
> would be; please, hand-hold me).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
> http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>

Attached is the patch with a slight change in the wording so it will
read better.

I think it's ok, so long as there's no modifications to the pure LGPL2
licensing for LAME.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

Hi, Andres.

On May 06 2011, Andres Mejia wrote:
> Attached is the patch with a slight change in the wording so it will
> read better.

Can you please send the patch inline. I have to see how SF is mangling the
e-mails so that my filters don't end up eating valuable parts of the
messages.


Thanks,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
> Hi, Andres.
>
> On May 06 2011, Andres Mejia wrote:
>> Attached is the patch with a slight change in the wording so it will
>> read better.
>
> Can you please send the patch inline. I have to see how SF is mangling the
> e-mails so that my filters don't end up eating valuable parts of the
> messages.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
> http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>

Ok.

Index: README
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/lame/lame/README,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 README
--- README	6 May 2011 19:59:03 -0000	1.16
+++ README	6 May 2011 21:41:35 -0000
@@ -1,18 +1,25 @@
                       LAME 3.xx
                LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder
                  http://lame.sf.net
-	             August 2010
+	             May 2011

 Originally developed by Mike Cheng (www.uq.net.au/~zzmcheng) and was
 latter developed by Mark Taylor (www.mp3dev.org). Currently maintained
 by The LAME Project.

 This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
-(LGPL, see http://www.gnu.org) with the following modification:
+(LGPL, see http://www.gnu.org), version 2.

-   If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a patent license,
-   and you obtain a patent license, you may distribute LAME even though
-   redistribution of LAME may also require a patent license.
+As LAME may contain software for which some companies may claim software
+patents, if you are in a location where software patents are recognized, it is
+suggested that you seek legal advice before deploying and/or redistributing
+LAME.
+
+In particular, it is suggested to visit
+
+    http://www.mp3licensing.com/
+
+if it applies to your jurisdiction.

 ============================================================================



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

Hi, Andres.

On May 06 2011, Andres Mejia wrote:
> Index: README
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/lame/lame/README,v
> retrieving revision 1.16
> diff -u -r1.16 README

Committed, thanks.

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

2011/5/6 Rogério Brito <rbrito@...>:
> Hi, Andres.
>
> On May 06 2011, Andres Mejia wrote:
>> Index: README
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvsroot/lame/lame/README,v
>> retrieving revision 1.16
>> diff -u -r1.16 README
>
> Committed, thanks.
>
> --
> Rogério Brito : rbrito@...} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
> http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
> DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
>

Great! Thank you.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

Hey Andres,

> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Mark Taylor <mt@...> wrote:
>> I'd be happy to just delete this text from the README.

great, thanks for achieving this!

Cheers,
Fabian