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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to