19 Aug
2005
19 Aug
'05
08:10
On 8/19/05, Wolfgang Rosenauer
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?