Re: Joke non-free clauses?

["Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC)" <dreamerwolf.tw@gmail.com>]

Hi,

2010/4/9 Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>:
> libdumb is already in Debian:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/libdumb
>
> It woulud be nice if you could switch to a more standard license
> instead of inventing your own. I'd recommend one of BSD, ISC,
> MIT/Expat, LGPL, GPL.
>
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libd/libdumb/current/copyright
Thank you, point out the problem.

2010/4/9 Ben Davis <entheh@users.sf.net>:
> Could you clarify: is there a problem with DUMB v0.9.3, or is it that DUMB v0.9.2 is non-free and the notice resolving the situation for 0.9.2 no longer remains?
They forked a new version from 0.9.2 , and the library in Debian is 0.9.3 .
I think the problem that could be solved between versions.

Because the authors in deadbeef want to release with GPL and LGPL Version 2,
I'm seriously concerned about this joke.
What kind license could they use in '0.9.3'? is BSD ok? or GPL?

regards,
--
Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC) <dreamerwolf.tw@gmail.com>