Humm, apparently, something in the way ate your patch and I didn't receive it.
On May 06 2011, Andres Mejia wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> > On 11-05-06 at 04:31pm, Andres Mejia wrote:
> >> + "This library is free software; you can redistribute it
> >> and/or\n"
> >> + "modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public\n"
> >> + "License as published by the Free Software Foundation;
> >> either\n"
> >> + "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
> >> version.\n"
> >> "\n"
> >
> > There is no such thing as version 2 of the "GNU Lesser General Public
> > License".
Right.
> > There is either "GNU Library General Public License" version 2.0 or "GNU
> > Lesser General Public License" version 2.1.
> >
> > The former is considered obsolete by the Free Software Foundation, and
> > the latter is by the Free Software Foundation interpreted as a successor
> > to the older _Library_ license even if differently named.
Right again. Aside from naming/version, is there any change in content from
LGPL2.0 and LGPL2.1?
Too busy to check right now...
> The copyright headers for the sources in LAME still say LGPL2.0. The patch
> simply reflects this.
Indeed.
Regards,
--
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
