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