Am 19.04.2011 21:02, schrieb Sebastian Dröge: > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:56 +0000, Torsten Werner wrote: >> the package fails to comply with the LGPL. Quoting from the top level README: >> >> (LGPL, see www.gnu.org) with the following modification: >> ... >> 2. You agree not to enforce any patent claims for any aspect of >> MPEG audio compression, or any other techniques contained in >> the LAME source code. >> >> But the LPGL is clear: >> >> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of >> the >> rights granted herein. > > What exactly is wrong with this? Sure, it's not LGPL anymore and not > even LGPL compatible but by itself it should be a valid license.
Many file headers suggest that the code is plain LGPL licensed. Why do you think the code got relicensed by all copyright holders? Please clearly document such a license change. Torsten _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers