Le jeudi 26 août 2010 à 23:27 +0200, Gabriel Bouvigne a écrit : > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/115654 > > > > Do you agree with this claim?
> Without ressorting to any court, I share the opinion that every file > featuring the usual LPGLv2 header is only convered by the LPGLv2, > without any consideration of the two problematic notes located within > the readme file. > To me, those should only apply to "headerless" source files. It is even > likely that several of us haven't even noticed/considered those two > notes when commiting new files, faithfully willing to commit new files > only under LGPLv2. (at least that is the case for me). I think this is a valid claim, but it also makes lame as a whole undistributable, since you cannot link together code that is licensed under regular LGPLv2+ and code that is under LGPLv2++restrictions, since the restrictions are incompatible with the LGPL. > > As a last resort, I think we can still redistribute lame under the terms > > of the LGPLv3, which seems the be permitted by the LAME license. The > > GPLv3 contains terms that are very similar to the modifications quoted > > above in §11. This should address the "additional restrictions" concern. > > > > Do you agree with this theory? > > I think that you can not redistribute LAME only under LGPLv3. According > to LGPLv2 you can choose to apply LGPLv3 to LAME, but you should not be > able to remove its LGPLv2-ability. I don’t think this is true. When a work is licensed under the LGPL vX “or any later version”, you can simply start redistributing it under a later version. But anyway, as I understand it, the additional restrictions to the LGPL are regardless of the LGPL version. > BTW, while the note #2 is an "activist" one, note #1 is a "pragmatic > one". LGPLv2 theoritically prevents any patent holder or patent to > distribute LAME. That is a huge problem for some companies, and goes far > beyond only LAME. It only prevents redistribution by holders of a patent that applies to LAME, or by those who have bought a patent license. I think this is a desirable side effect. And anyway, if it only applies to headerless files, the LGPL clauses apply anyway. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `- -- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1282894922.25321.26.ca...@meh
