Hi, On Thu, Sep 07, 2006, Anon Sricharoenchai wrote: > According to, > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xine-devel&m=107261185004445&w=2 , since > they can't find where to contact the author of majormms, either in > majormms website, http://www.geocities.com/majormms/ , and its source, > http://www.geocities.com/majormms/mms_client-0.0.3.tar.gz , it still > can't ensure that the author of majormms will allow relicensing to LGPL > or not.
The URL you mention is also present in the copyright file, this is no new information. Upstream publicly announced the LGPL relicensing. They explained part of the process they followed and what they got relicensed. I even challenged this state of fact by verifying part of this relicensing and by contacting the Ubuntu ftpmaster who reviewed the source package for Ubuntu and found it to be LGPL. Now, what is the basis of your claims that this might not be LGPL? What new information did you find? And why are you discussing this with Debian? This seems like an upstream problem to me and something to discuss with upstream. I think you can't blame Debian for trusting its own upstream software distributors to a certain extent. > Can debian relicense this package back to GPL to avoid this conflict? Sure, as soon as this is proven to be LGPL or not LGPL one way or the other, I will act accordingly. My current position is to trust upstream that this is LGPL, I've verified what I could of this information when I uploaded libmms to Debian. New information may change this position. Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
