On Wed, Sep 13, 2006, Don Armstrong wrote: > Ah; my understanding was that there were some parts (the xmms header > files?) which were GPL only, and that the rest of libmms was licenced > under the LGPL, which is what I retitled the bug to clarify. [If > that's actually the case, as debian/copyright currently indicates, it > should eventually be modified with the changes I suggested... but > that's a trivial issue.]
My picture is the following: the original code was written by MajorMMS, some files were contributed by Xine. The relicensing of the Xine files was publicly stated, but not the relicensing of the MajorMMS code. > Let me be as unequivocal as I can be: > There is no factual ground or reasonable reason to strip out the > LGPL and return the work to the GPLed state. > Because the LGPL can always be returned to the GPL, it is always > compatible with the GPL. We as distributors do not need to reduce the > flexibility we offer to those using the distribution.[1] > 1: We obviously could... but it is not required. Good, I'm of this opinion as well! > If upstream has released it under the LGPL, then that's good enough. > Even if they've made a mistake, and parts of it are still GPLed, > that's still fine because the LGPL is explicitly compatible with the > GPL. All that would mean is that the copyright file has a fixable > error in it because it doesn't document the actual license of parts > carefully enough. Yes; it also has consequences on the actual runtime license of some dependent projects. > The only questionable part comes if you actually need the permissions > of the LGPL in Debian... but I assume that's not the case here. [And > baring clarification from the submitter, we should assume that the > relicensing was carried out with due dilligence, and that those extra > permisions are actually available.] We don't need it *for Debian*, since it's DFSG-free enough to have all code in Debian GPL, however some people relying on libmms directly or indirectly might rely on the fact they believe it's LGPL, and they might be using Debian. Anyway, bug tagged as waiting for factual information, if I get some, I shall update the copyright, it's as simple as that. :) -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
