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

2011-05-11 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-05-12 at 08:55am, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Attached is a rough(!) summary of licenses.

Whoops - I forgot the actual attachment :-P


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=174
Upstream-Name: FIXME
Upstream-Contact: FIXME
Source: FIXME
Disclaimer: Autogenerated by CDBS

Files: ACM/ADbg/ADbg.dsp
 ACM/ADbg/ADbg_vc7.vcproj
 ACM/ADbg/Makefile.am
 ACM/LameACM.inf
 ACM/Makefile.am
 ACM/TODO
 ACM/ddk/Makefile.am
 ACM/lame.ico
 ACM/lameACM_vc6.dsp
 ACM/lameACM_vc7.vcproj
 ACM/readme.txt
 ACM/tinyxml/Makefile.am
 ACM/tinyxml/Makefile.tinyxml
 ACM/tinyxml/changes.txt
 ACM/tinyxml/dox
 ACM/tinyxml/makedistlinux
 ACM/tinyxml/makedistwin.bat
 ACM/tinyxml/test.dsp
 ACM/tinyxml/test.dsw
 ACM/tinyxml/tinyxml.dsp
 ACM/tinyxml/tinyxml_vc7.vcproj
 ACM/tinyxml/tinyxmlerror.cpp
 ACM/tinyxml/xmltest.cpp
 API
 ChangeLog
 DEFINES
 Dll/BladeMP3EncDLL.def
 Dll/Example_vc6.dsp
 Dll/Example_vc6.dsw
 Dll/LameDll_vc6.dsp
 Dll/LameDll_vc8.vcproj
 Dll/Makefile.am
 Dll/Makefile.mingw32
 Dll/README
 HACKING
 INSTALL
 INSTALL.configure
 LICENSE
 Makefile.MSVC
 Makefile.am
 Makefile.am.global
 Makefile.unix
 README.WINGTK
 STYLEGUIDE
 TODO
 USAGE
 acinclude.m4
 config.h.in
 configMS.h
 configure.in
 debian/README.source
 debian/clean
 debian/compat
 debian/control
 debian/gbp.conf
 debian/lame-doc.doc-base
 debian/lame-doc.install
 debian/lame.install
 debian/libmp3lame-dev.install
 debian/libmp3lame0.install
 debian/patches/01-debian-directory.patch
 debian/patches/02-dynamic-frontends.patch
 debian/patches/04-exec-stac.patch
 debian/patches/05-armel-no-finite-math-only.patch
 debian/patches/06-sndfile-stdin.patch
 debian/patches/07-field-width-fix.patch
 debian/patches/08-disable-am-gtk-patch-check.patch
 debian/patches/series
 debian/source.lintian-overrides
 debian/source/format
 debian/watch
 doc/Makefile.am
 doc/html/Makefile.am
 doc/html/basic.html
 doc/html/contributors.html
 doc/html/examples.html
 doc/html/id3.html
 doc/html/index.html
 doc/html/lame.css
 doc/html/modes.html
 doc/html/node6.html
 doc/html/switchs.html
 doc/man/Makefile.am
 doc/man/lame.1
 dshow/Makefile.am
 dshow/dshow.dsp
 dshow/dshow.dsw
 dshow/elogo.ico
 frontend/Makefile.am
 frontend/amiga_mpega.c
 frontend/console.c
 frontend/console.h
 frontend/lame_vc6.dsp
 frontend/lame_vc8.vcproj
 frontend/mp3rtp.c
 frontend/mp3x.c
 frontend/mp3x_vc6.dsp
 frontend/parse.h
 frontend/rtp.c
 frontend/rtp.h
 include/Makefile.am
 lame.bat
 lame.spec.in
 lame_clients_vc6.dsw
 lame_projects_vc6.dsp
 lame_vc6.dsw
 lame_vc8.sln
 libmp3lame/Makefile.am
 libmp3lame/i386/Makefile.am
 libmp3lame/i386/cpu_feat.nas
 libmp3lame/id3tag.h
 libmp3lame/lame_global_flags.h
 libmp3lame/libmp3lame_dll_vc6.dsp
 libmp3lame/libmp3lame_vc6.dsp
 libmp3lame/libmp3lame_vc8.vcproj
 libmp3lame/logoe.ico
 libmp3lame/vector/Makefile.am
 mac/.DS_Store
 mac/LAME.mcp
 mac/LAME_Carbon_Debug.pch
 mac/LAME_Carbon_Final.pch
 mac/LAME_Classic_Debug.pch
 mac/LAME_Classic_Final.pch
 mac/MacDLLMain.c
 mac/Makefile.am
 mac/Precompile_Common.h
 macosx/English.lproj/InfoPlist.strings
 macosx/English.lproj/Makefile.am
 macosx/Info.plist
 macosx/LAME.xcodeproj/Makefile.am
 macosx/LAME.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj
 macosx/LAME_Prefix.pch
 macosx/Makefile.am
 misc/Lame.vbs
 misc/Makefile.am
 misc/abx.c
 misc/lame4dos.bat
 misc/lameGUI.html
 misc/lameid3.pl
 misc/mlame
 misc/mlame_corr.c
 misc/mugeco.sh
 misc/scalartest.c
 mpglib/AUTHORS
 mpglib/Makefile.am
 mpglib/mpglib_vc6.dsp
 mpglib/mpglib_vc8.vcproj
 vc_solution/Makefile.am
 vc_solution/vc9_lame.sln
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_acm.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_acm_adbg.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_acm_tinyxml.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_clients.sln
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_config.vsprops
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_dll.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_dll_example.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_dshow.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_lame.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_lame_mp3x.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_libmp3lame.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_libmp3lame_dll.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_mpglib.vcproj
 vc_solution/vc9_nasm.rules
Copyright: *No copyright*
License: UNKNOWN
 FIXME

Files: ACM/ADbg/Makefile.in
 ACM/Makefile.in
 ACM/ddk/Makefile.in
 ACM/resource.h
 ACM/tinyxml/Makefile.in
 Dll/Makefile.in
 Makefile.in
 doc/Makefile.in
 doc/html/Makefile.in
 doc/man/Makefile.in
 dshow/Makefile.in
 dshow/resource.h
 frontend/Makefile.in
 include/Makefile.in
 libmp3lame/Makefile.in
 libmp3lame/i386/Makefile.in
 libmp3lame/vector/Makefile.in
 mac/Makefile.in
 macosx/English.lproj/Makefile.in
 macosx/LAME.xcodeproj/Makefile.in
 macosx/Makefile.in
 misc/Makefile.in
 mpglib/Makefile.in
 vc_solution/Makefile.in
Copyright: 1001
 1007
 1994-2002
License: UNKNOWN
 FIXME

Files: frontend/brhist.c
 frontend/brhist.h
 frontend/gpkplotting.c
 frontend/gpkplotting.h
 frontend/gtkanal.c
 frontend/lametime.c
 frontend/lametime.h
 fro

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

2011-05-11 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On 11-05-11 at 10:55pm, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:50, robert  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


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

2011-05-11 Thread Andres Mejia
2011/5/11 Rogério Brito :
> Hi, All.
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:50, robert  wrote:
>> Am 09.05.2011, 00:03 Uhr, schrieb :
>>
>>>  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"
+".\n");
 return 0;
 }



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia

__

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  wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011, 00:03 Uhr, schrieb :
>
>>  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

2011-05-07 Thread robert

Am 06.05.2011, 23:31 Uhr, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard :


On 11-05-06 at 04:55pm, Andres Mejia wrote:

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonas Smedegaard  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


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

2011-05-07 Thread robert

Am 06.05.2011, 22:52 Uhr, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard :


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

2011-05-06 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"
+".\n");
+
 return 0;
 }

> On May 06 2011, Andres Mejia wrote:
> > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonas Smedegaard  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 

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  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