On 2005-08-19 at 13:40:07 +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote (shortened):
On 8/19/05, Wolfgang Rosenauer
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?
if your write your own code and give it a license you might not know that the algorithm is patented. Or even if you know it you can license it as you like. 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