Re: [Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change
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
2011/5/11 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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