Re: Bug#386406: libmms: majormms haven't yet granted relicensing to LGPL
severity 386406 important
tags 386406 + moreinfo
retitle 386406 Some bits might not have been properly relicensed, but please provide/gather more information
stop
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Loic: The only actual (minor) issue here is that the package doesn't
> reference the GPL and include the copyright+licensing statement of the
> parts that are GPL licensed. It would also be useful to include the
> actual copyright statements of the parts which you have included the
> LGPLed license statement. [Adjusting the severity accordingly; feel
> free to override.]
The upstream tarball is said to be LGPL, and was relicensed as such
after the message the OP links to. This is the result of an upstream
relicensing work, which was announced publicly and followed by a
tarball release.
My understanding is that the submitter claims that this relicensing is
incomplete and/or erroneous, but doesn't provide any further
information than references to messages before the relicensing
happened.
Even if relicensing the Debian package would have some consequences, I
am open to this solution *if* this has some factual and recent ground.
I currently didn't see any useful new piece of information, and would
like to get convinced that the licensing is required (since I had
already convinced myself that the LGPL was fine when I prepared the
package in the first place).
Perhaps the best way to achieve this is for the OP to clarify the
conditions of the relicensing with upstream. Before anyone suggest I
should be the one doing this, please recall that I already did it when
uploading to Debian, and there's no new piece of information in the
report.
Thanks for discussion,
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
Reply to: