Re: [Lame-dev] LAME license
Le jeudi 26 août 2010 à 23:27 +0200, Gabriel Bouvigne a écrit :
> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/115654
> >
> > Do you agree with this claim?
> Without ressorting to any court, I share the opinion that every file
> featuring the usual LPGLv2 header is only convered by the LPGLv2,
> without any consideration of the two problematic notes located within
> the readme file.
> To me, those should only apply to "headerless" source files. It is even
> likely that several of us haven't even noticed/considered those two
> notes when commiting new files, faithfully willing to commit new files
> only under LGPLv2. (at least that is the case for me).
I think this is a valid claim, but it also makes lame as a whole
undistributable, since you cannot link together code that is licensed
under regular LGPLv2+ and code that is under LGPLv2++restrictions, since
the restrictions are incompatible with the LGPL.
> > As a last resort, I think we can still redistribute lame under the terms
> > of the LGPLv3, which seems the be permitted by the LAME license. The
> > GPLv3 contains terms that are very similar to the modifications quoted
> > above in §11. This should address the "additional restrictions" concern.
> >
> > Do you agree with this theory?
>
> I think that you can not redistribute LAME only under LGPLv3. According
> to LGPLv2 you can choose to apply LGPLv3 to LAME, but you should not be
> able to remove its LGPLv2-ability.
I don’t think this is true. When a work is licensed under the LGPL vX
“or any later version”, you can simply start redistributing it under a
later version.
But anyway, as I understand it, the additional restrictions to the LGPL
are regardless of the LGPL version.
> BTW, while the note #2 is an "activist" one, note #1 is a "pragmatic
> one". LGPLv2 theoritically prevents any patent holder or patent to
> distribute LAME. That is a huge problem for some companies, and goes far
> beyond only LAME.
It only prevents redistribution by holders of a patent that applies to
LAME, or by those who have bought a patent license. I think this is a
desirable side effect.
And anyway, if it only applies to headerless files, the LGPL clauses
apply anyway.
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know
`. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.”
`- -- J???rg Schilling
Reply to: