On 11-05-11 at 10:55pm, Rogério Brito wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:50, robert <robert.hegem...@gmx.de> wrote: > > 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 > paperwork).
Attached is a rough(!) summary of licenses. According to Free Software Foundation LGPL-2.1 is a successor of LGPL-2.0 even if named differently. The L.A.M.E. project need not relicense all files to LGPL-2.1 in order for the project to fit Debian Free Software Guidelines - as the LGPB-2.0 permits a reliconsor to upgrade. The problem was that you did not license as GNU LGPL-2.0/2.1 but a bogus naming mixture of the two. So if that is cleaned up, I believe you need to do more - and in fact may run into trouble trying to do more, if you do not keep in contact with all original copyright holders of the code. NB! I am not a lawyer, so all of this is just my personal suggestions and my personal understanding of these matters. I am an official Debian Developer, but as is typically the case with flat organisaztion of Debian, I speak for noone but myself. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers