Dear Mark,
We are currently having a discussion regarding the possibility of
including LAME in Debian and the e-mail below by Reinhard is a summary
of the situation.
Can you shed some light? It seems that the README file [1] is the one
that causes some concerns.
http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.n
Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
b) Additionally, there is a README file included, which contains this
text:
,[ taken from LAME's README file:
| This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
| (LGPL, see www.gnu.org) with the following modification:
|
| 1. If you determine that d
Dear debian-legal,
I'm currently working on the lame package that currently awaits
processing from ftpteam in NEW. During the review there some concerns
raised regarding the package licensing. I'm now asking you, dear
debian-legal regulars, to state your opinion.
a) The source files in the lame p
Stefan Bauer wrote:
> Basically that is true, setkey as part of ipsec-tools is using parts of
> openssl-headers. Howto deal with that? From what i've read is, that if
> the upstream authors are aggree on adding an openssl exeption to there
> license, that would be a solution around this problem. I
hi folks,
nowadays, lintian reports the following error after a check:
possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl
Basically that is true, setkey as part of ipsec-tools is using parts of
openssl-headers. Howto deal with that? From what i've read is, that if
the upstream authors are aggree on adding an
5 matches
Mail list logo
