Hi, All.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:50, robert <robert.hegem...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011, 00:03 Uhr, schrieb <bouvi...@mp3-tech.org>:
>>  It seems that it was actually a mistake. I've been confused by the
>>  "library" vs "lesser" naming, and did not noticed then that "lesser" was
>>  only the v2.1 name.
> I see, thanks.
>>  I just intended to "correct" the naming (which was actually correct),
>>  but not to change the license. (thus why I kept v2).
>>  Changing the license version would have required approval of other Lame
>>  devs, which is something I would not try to bypass.
> I'm sure all of our contributors are OK with LGPL 2.1, because as we say:
> "...either
>  * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
>>  Short version of the answer:
>>  Sorry, I was confused. Please consider the license as "Library GPL v2".
> Now we have some files "Lesser GPL 2.1" and most files "Library GPL 2.0",
> namely gain_analysis.[ch] and the ACM stuff are LGPL 2.1.
> Does that make any problems?

It would be a good thing if we could upgrade things to LGPL 2.1.
Perhaps people at Debian could help us with some license auditing here
(perhaps the program licensecheck would be appropriate here). In the
worst case, I can do that myself, even though I am quite short on time
nowadays (moving home with my soon to be wife and doing a lot of

> We can't downgrade the LGPL 2.1 files, that's for sure.



Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to