2011/4/19 Torsten Werner <twer...@debian.org>:
> 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 
>>>   (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.

I do not think that it is the package maintainer's duty to check with
all copyright holders that they agree with the license of an upstream
package. I have never seen that before and I do not think that this
has been done for any other package.

What exactly makes you think that the situation should be different with lame?


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to