Re: [Lame-dev] LAME license
Dear Mark,
We are currently having a discussion regarding the possibility of
including LAME in Debian and the e-mail below by Reinhard is a summary
of the situation.
Can you shed some light? It seems that the README file [1] is the one
that causes some concerns.
http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?view=markup
Thanks, Rogério Brito.
On Aug 26 2010, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
> that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal as well.
>
> Dear debian-legal,
>
> I'm currently working on the lame package that currently awaits
> processing from ftpteam in NEW. During the review there some concerns
> raised regarding the package licensing. I'm now asking you, dear
> debian-legal regulars, to state your opinion.
>
> a) The source files in the lame package all have a standard LGPLv2+
> headers. In the root directory of the source tree, the text of the
> LGPL is found in the file COPYING.
>
> b) Additionally, there is a README file included, which contains this
> text:
>
> ,----[ taken from LAME's README file:
> | This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
> | (LGPL, see www.gnu.org) with the following modification:
> |
> | 1. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a patent license,
> | and you obtain a patent license, you may distribute LAME even though
> | redistribution of LAME may also require a patent license.
> |
> | 2. You agree not to enforce any patent claims for any aspect of
> | MPEG audio compression, or any other techniques contained in
> | the LAME source code.
> `----
>
> Now the member of the ftpteam is concerned that this might be an
> additional restriction that is not allowed by the (L)GPLv2.
>
> I tend to agree here, and tried to ask upstream on their opinion on
> this:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.mp3.lame/5092
>
>
>
> Since there was no really helpful response on that inquiry, I've tried
> asking at FFmpeg upstream, which provide software that can optionally
> use LAME to encode to the MP3 format. On that mailing list, Reimar
> Doeffinger points out that because this additional restriction is not
> visible in the respective source files but hidden in the README, this
> "almost certainly wouldn't hold up in any court":
>
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/115654
>
> Do you agree with this claim?
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> --
> Gruesse/greetings,
> Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
> Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users
> worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and
> speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d
> _______________________________________________
> Lame-dev mailing list
> Lame-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lame-dev
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
Reply to: