19 Aug
2005
19 Aug
'05
07:53
On 2005-08-19 at 12:57:43 +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote (shortened):
On 8/19/05, Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
The problem is not the license of "mad", its the probably patented algorithms inside (which automatically would void the LGPL/GPL anyway).
How can mad have a license that is "more open" than any one of its components?
Licenses != Patents Regards, Wolfgang Rosenauer -- SUSE - A Novell business -o) Tel: +49-(0)911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstr. 5 /\\ Fax: +49-(0)911-740 53 489 90409 Nuernberg, Germany _\_v