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 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.


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to