El Viernes, 19 de Agosto de 2005 10:10, Shriramana Sharma escribió:
On 8/19/05, Wolfgang Rosenauer <stark@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
Oh, right. But a patented technology needs to be licenced to be used/distributed, no?
Right. If you create a program and you use an algorythm in it that is patented, you must get a license from the patent holder in order to distribute your program in a country where that patent is valid. The patent holder may impose you any conditions he'd like, although it's usually a question of money. Anyway, as long as the patent holder doesn't ask you to distribute the program under a certain license you're free to use the license you want. -- Víctor Fernández Martínez Gabinete de prensa de PoLinux [www.polinux.upv.es]. Usuario de Linux registrado #312284 en http://counter.li.org.