Am 06.05.2011, 23:31 Uhr, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
On 11-05-06 at 04:55pm, Andres Mejia wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> On 11-05-06 at 04:31pm, Andres Mejia wrote:
>> + "This library is free software; you can redistribute it
>> + "modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General
>> + "License as published by the Free Software Foundation;
>> + "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any
> There is no such thing as version 2 of the "GNU Lesser General
> Public License".
> There is either "GNU Library General Public License" version 2.0 or
> "GNU Lesser General Public License" version 2.1.
> The former is considered obsolete by the Free Software Foundation,
> and the latter is by the Free Software Foundation interpreted as a
> successor to the older _Library_ license even if differently named.
The copyright headers for the sources in LAME still say LGPL2.0. The
patch simply reflects this.
I suspect you do not understand my point, then:
LGPL2.0 == GNU Library General Public License version 2.0
LGPL2.0 != GNU Lesser General Public License version 2
You proposed the latter, which has 2 (two) flaws: a) "Lesser" instead of
the correct "Library", and b) "2" instead of the correct "2.0".
It would have been better to change the text into
"GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1"
Gabriel, was it this what you intended as you replaced
"Library GPL" by "Lesser GPL", some years ago?
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list