On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 06:58:56PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >Maybe I was not clear, but I assumed the v2+ from the COPYING.LIB
> >containing the LGPL-2+ text, shipped with the upstream tarball (it's
> >present also in the orig.tar of the libzzip package by the way).
> >Isn't this enough?
>
> _Above_ does not contain that info.
>
> I fail to locate a COPYING.LIB inside of the zziplib subdir, and
> even if it existed, we would need to add a Comment: stating that we
> *assume* that to be the licensing which is too vaguely described in
> the embedded licensing statements themselves.
>
> We need to be explicit in debian/copyright.
I see.
> >>>>Do anyone here know for sure if LGPL-2+ is compatible with GPL-3?
> >>>
> >>>I think it is [2].
> >>
> >>No - that only talks about GPL-2+ and LGPL-2.1, not LGPL-2.
> >
> >They are not much different AFAIK, I think the v2 weren't listed for this
> >reason... but a request on debian-legal would be the safest solution.
>
> I suggest first resolving for sure which version(s) of LGPL is
> actually ised throughout this codebase,
How could this be done? I mean, you said that the license file in the
upstream tarbal is not enough authoritative, so what would be a passable
proof?
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
