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 >>> 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.
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? Romain _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers