Re: [Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-11 Thread Rogério Brito
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
paperwork).

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

Sure.


Regards,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
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
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-11 Thread Andres Mejia
2011/5/11 Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br:
 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
 paperwork).

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

 Sure.


 Regards,

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


LGPL 2.1 is a successor to LGPL 2 and the copyright headers state (or
at your option) any later version, so yes you would be able to
distribute LAME under LGPL 2.1.

BTW, here is that patch again as you asked.

--- a/frontend/parse.c
+++ b/frontend/parse.c
@@ -395,33 +395,24 @@ static int
 print_license(FILE * const fp)
 {   /* print version  license */
 lame_version_print(fp);
+Copyright (c) 1999-2011 by The LAME Project\n
+Copyright (c) 1999,2000,2001 by Mark Taylor\n
+Copyright (c) 1998 by Michael Cheng\n
+Copyright (c) 1995,1996,1997 by Michael Hipp: mpglib\n \n);
 fprintf(fp,
-Can I use LAME in my commercial program?\n
+This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or\n
+modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public\n
+License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either\n
+version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version.\n
 \n
-Yes, you can, under the restrictions of the LGPL.  In
particular, you\n
-can include a compiled version of the LAME library (for
example,\n
-lame.dll) with a commercial program.  Some notable
requirements of\n
-the LGPL:\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-1. In your program, you cannot include any source code
from LAME, with\n
-   the exception of files whose only purpose is to
describe the library\n
-   interface (such as lame.h).\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-2. Any modifications of LAME must be released under the LGPL.\n
-   The LAME project (www.mp3dev.org) would appreciate being\n
-   notified of any modifications.\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-3. You must give prominent notice that your program is:\n
-  A. using LAME (including version number)\n
-  B. LAME is under the LGPL\n
-  C. Provide a copy of the LGPL.  (the file COPYING
contains the LGPL)\n
-  D. Provide a copy of LAME source, or a pointer
where the LAME\n
- source can be obtained (such as www.mp3dev.org)\n
-   An example of prominent notice would be an \About
the LAME encoding engine\\n
-   button in some pull down menu within the executable
of your program.\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-4. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a
patent license,\n
-   you must obtain such license.\n \n \n);
+This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,\n
+but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of\n
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
See the GNU\n
+Library General Public License for more details.\n
+\n
+You should have received a copy of the GNU Library
General Public\n
+License along with this program. If not, see\n
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.\n);
 return 0;
 }



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

Re: [Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-07 Thread robert

Am 06.05.2011, 22:52 Uhr, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk:


There is either GNU Library General Public License version 2.0 or GNU
Lesser General Public License version 2.1.


It looks like Gabriel replaced 'Library' by 'Lesser' 3 years and 9 months
ago, I'm sure he had some reason for doing it, I would like to hear his
opinion on this issue.


Ciao Robert

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-07 Thread robert

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  
and/or\n
 +modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General  
Public\n
 +License as published by the Free Software Foundation;  
either\n
 +version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any  
later version.\n

  \n

 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.


Kind regards,

 - Jonas


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?


Ciao Robert

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


[PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Andres Mejia
Hello again,

Here's hopefully one more thing that should be fixed. It's an output
change from what's printed when using 'lame --license'. The patch is
attached which applies to the latest release of LAME (not CVS).

This is just a suggested change. LAME could still be redistributed
as-is I believe. However, I think it's best not to give legal
interpretations of the LGPL and instead simply give the generic LGPL
header information.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia
Description: Patch to simply print LGPL licence header when using lame --license

--- lame-3.98.4.orig/frontend/parse.c
+++ lame-3.98.4/frontend/parse.c
@@ -531,39 +531,25 @@ print_license(FILE * const fp)
 {   /* print version  license */
 lame_version_print(fp);
 fprintf(fp,
-Can I use LAME in my commercial program?\n
+Copyright (c) 1999-2011 by The LAME Project\n
+Copyright (c) 1999,2000,2001 by Mark Taylor\n
+Copyright (c) 1998 by Michael Cheng\n
+Copyright (c) 1995,1996,1997 by Michael Hipp: mpglib\n \n);
+fprintf(fp,
+This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or\n
+modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public\n
+License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either\n
+version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.\n
 \n
-Yes, you can, under the restrictions of the LGPL.  In particular, you\n
-can include a compiled version of the LAME library (for example,\n
-lame.dll) with a commercial program.  Some notable requirements of\n
-the LGPL:\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-1. In your program, you cannot include any source code from LAME, with\n
-   the exception of files whose only purpose is to describe the library\n
-   interface (such as lame.h).\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-2. Any modifications of LAME must be released under the LGPL.\n
-   The LAME project (www.mp3dev.org) would appreciate being\n
-   notified of any modifications.\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-3. You must give prominent notice that your program is:\n
-  A. using LAME (including version number)\n
-  B. LAME is under the LGPL\n
-  C. Provide a copy of the LGPL.  (the file COPYING contains the LGPL)\n
-  D. Provide a copy of LAME source, or a pointer where the LAME\n
- source can be obtained (such as www.mp3dev.org)\n
-   An example of prominent notice would be an \About the LAME encoding engine\\n
-   button in some pull down menu within the executable of your program.\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-4. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a patent license,\n
-   you must obtain such license.\n \n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-*** IMPORTANT NOTE ***\n
+This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,\n
+but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of\n
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU\n
+Library General Public License for more details.\n
 \n
-The decoding functions provided in LAME use the mpglib decoding engine which\n
-is under the GPL.  They may not be used by any program not released under the\n
-GPL unless you obtain such permission from the MPG123 project (www.mpg123.de).\n
-\n);
+You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public\n
+License along with this program. If not, see\n
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.\n);
+
 return 0;
 }
 
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-05-06 at 04:31pm, Andres Mejia wrote:
 +This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or\n
 +modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public\n
 +License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either\n
 +version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later 
 version.\n
  \n

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.


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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Andres Mejia
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 
 and/or\n
 +            modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public\n
 +            License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either\n
 +            version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later 
 version.\n
              \n

 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.


 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


The copyright headers for the sources in LAME still say LGPL2.0. The
patch simply reflects this.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
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 
  and/or\n
  +            modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public\n
  +            License as published by the Free Software Foundation; 
  either\n
  +            version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later 
  version.\n
               \n
 
  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.


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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Andres Mejia
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
 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 
  and/or\n
  +            modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General 
  Public\n
  +            License as published by the Free Software Foundation; 
  either\n
  +            version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later 
  version.\n
               \n
 
  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.


 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


Check frontend/parse.c. You'll see the header mentions the *Lesser*
General Public License 2. The patch simply reflects that.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Rogério Brito
Humm, apparently, something in the way ate your patch and I didn't receive
it.

On May 06 2011, 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 
  and/or\n
  +            modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public\n
  +            License as published by the Free Software Foundation; 
  either\n
  +            version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later 
  version.\n
               \n
 
  There is no such thing as version 2 of the GNU Lesser General Public
  License.

Right.

  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.

Right again. Aside from naming/version, is there any change in content from
LGPL2.0 and LGPL2.1?

Too busy to check right now...

 The copyright headers for the sources in LAME still say LGPL2.0. The patch
 simply reflects this.

Indeed.


Regards,

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: [Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Andres Mejia
On Friday 06 May 2011 5:50:59 pm Rogério Brito wrote:
 Humm, apparently, something in the way ate your patch and I didn't receive
 it.

Here it is again inline.

Description: Patch to simply print LGPL licence header when using lame --license

--- lame-3.98.4.orig/frontend/parse.c
+++ lame-3.98.4/frontend/parse.c
@@ -531,39 +531,25 @@ print_license(FILE * const fp)
 {   /* print version  license */
 lame_version_print(fp);
 fprintf(fp,
-Can I use LAME in my commercial program?\n
+Copyright (c) 1999-2011 by The LAME Project\n
+Copyright (c) 1999,2000,2001 by Mark Taylor\n
+Copyright (c) 1998 by Michael Cheng\n
+Copyright (c) 1995,1996,1997 by Michael Hipp: mpglib\n \n);
+fprintf(fp,
+This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or\n
+modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public\n
+License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either\n
+version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later 
version.\n
 \n
-Yes, you can, under the restrictions of the LGPL.  In particular, 
you\n
-can include a compiled version of the LAME library (for 
example,\n
-lame.dll) with a commercial program.  Some notable requirements 
of\n
-the LGPL:\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-1. In your program, you cannot include any source code from LAME, 
with\n
-   the exception of files whose only purpose is to describe the 
library\n
-   interface (such as lame.h).\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-2. Any modifications of LAME must be released under the LGPL.\n
-   The LAME project (www.mp3dev.org) would appreciate being\n
-   notified of any modifications.\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-3. You must give prominent notice that your program is:\n
-  A. using LAME (including version number)\n
-  B. LAME is under the LGPL\n
-  C. Provide a copy of the LGPL.  (the file COPYING contains 
the LGPL)\n
-  D. Provide a copy of LAME source, or a pointer where the 
LAME\n
- source can be obtained (such as www.mp3dev.org)\n
-   An example of prominent notice would be an \About the LAME 
encoding engine\\n
-   button in some pull down menu within the executable of your 
program.\n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-4. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a patent 
license,\n
-   you must obtain such license.\n \n \n);
-fprintf(fp,
-*** IMPORTANT NOTE ***\n
+This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,\n
+but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of\n
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the 
GNU\n
+Library General Public License for more details.\n
 \n
-The decoding functions provided in LAME use the mpglib decoding 
engine which\n
-is under the GPL.  They may not be used by any program not 
released under the\n
-GPL unless you obtain such permission from the MPG123 project 
(www.mpg123.de).\n
-\n);
+You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General 
Public\n
+License along with this program. If not, see\n
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.\n);
+
 return 0;
 }

 On May 06 2011, 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
   and/or\n +modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser
   General Public\n +License as published by the Free
   Software Foundation; either\n +version 2 of the
   License, or (at your option) any later version.\n \n
   
   There is no such thing as version 2 of the GNU Lesser General Public
   License.
 
 Right.
 
   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.
 
 Right again. Aside from naming/version, is there any change in content from
 LGPL2.0 and LGPL2.1?

There's a long explanation of why it's now called Lesser instead of
Library GPL, a section 6b was added, and there were minor tweaks done to the
wording along with the naming/version changes.

 Too busy to check right now...
 
  The copyright headers for the sources in LAME still say LGPL2.0. The
  patch simply reflects this.
 
 Indeed.
 
 
 Regards,

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

___

Re: [PATCH] lame --license output change

2011-05-06 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-05-06 at 05:38pm, Andres Mejia wrote:
 On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
  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.

 Check frontend/parse.c. You'll see the header mentions the *Lesser* 
 General Public License 2. The patch simply reflects that.

Thanks for clarifying.

My comment still stand, however - now targeted upstream only, rather 
than both at upstream and you :-)


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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers