On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 12:51 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:08:20AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >Ok, I updated the debian/copyright and pushed the changes to
> >git.debian.org. Its ready for re-upload.
> >I just wanted to add that the previous condition was legal, LGPL-2.1
> >files can be incorporated into a GPL-2 project, so it was correct to
> >say that the whole project could be used under the GPL-2. It is not
> >correct to say that the whole library could be used under the LGPL-2.1
> >though, only some of the files, if used in isolation.
> Legal, yes: The licenses are indeed compatible.
> The issue, though, is about Policy compliance: §4.5 requires including
> "verbatim" copies of licensing - meaning that even if we legally are
> allowed to relicense under different compatible terms, we limit
> ourselves to only _reuse_ upstream licensing.
The library as a whole is licensed using GPL-2 by upstream in the
LICENSE.txt file. The relicensing was done upstream.
More info is good, no argument there, but rejecting the package seems
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list