Guus Sliepen wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:18:00PM +0200, Loïc Martin wrote:License is GPL2+, except for 2 files (src/dct/{fdct.c,idct.c} ) which are GPL2+, but with the additionnal note:Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software (or portions thereof) for any purpose, without fee, subject to these conditions: (1) If any part of the source code for this software is distributed, then this README file must be included, with this copyright and no-warranty notice unaltered; and any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation. (2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group". (3) Permission for use of this software is granted only if the user accepts full responsibility for any undesirable consequences; the authors accept NO LIABILITY for damages of any kind.How is that compatible with the rest of the code? Clearly the whole library would not be GPL2+ if there are additional restrictions.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses, where the "Independent JPEG Group License" is listed:
Independent JPEG Group License This is a free software license, and compatible with the GNU GPL. The authors have assured us that developers who document changes as
> required by the GPL will also comply with the similar requirement in > this license.I'd like why it would make the whole library not GPL2+ - not that Debian will ship the binaries of course, but I guess a lot of projects and manufacturers might need to know that.