On Friday 06 May 2011 5:50:59 pm Rogério Brito wrote:
> Humm, apparently, something in the way ate your patch and I didn't receive
> it.
Here it is again inline.
Description: Patch to simply print LGPL licence header when using lame --license
--- lame-3.98.4.orig/frontend/parse.c
+++ lame-3.98.4/frontend/parse.c
@@ -531,39 +531,25 @@ print_license(FILE * const fp)
{ /* print version & license */
lame_version_print(fp);
fprintf(fp,
- "Can I use LAME in my commercial program?\n"
+ "Copyright (c) 1999-2011 by The LAME Project\n"
+ "Copyright (c) 1999,2000,2001 by Mark Taylor\n"
+ "Copyright (c) 1998 by Michael Cheng\n"
+ "Copyright (c) 1995,1996,1997 by Michael Hipp: mpglib\n" "\n");
+ fprintf(fp,
+ "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"
- "Yes, you can, under the restrictions of the LGPL. In particular,
you\n"
- "can include a compiled version of the LAME library (for
example,\n"
- "lame.dll) with a commercial program. Some notable requirements
of\n"
- "the LGPL:\n" "\n");
- fprintf(fp,
- "1. In your program, you cannot include any source code from LAME,
with\n"
- " the exception of files whose only purpose is to describe the
library\n"
- " interface (such as lame.h).\n" "\n");
- fprintf(fp,
- "2. Any modifications of LAME must be released under the LGPL.\n"
- " The LAME project (www.mp3dev.org) would appreciate being\n"
- " notified of any modifications.\n" "\n");
- fprintf(fp,
- "3. You must give prominent notice that your program is:\n"
- " A. using LAME (including version number)\n"
- " B. LAME is under the LGPL\n"
- " C. Provide a copy of the LGPL. (the file COPYING contains
the LGPL)\n"
- " D. Provide a copy of LAME source, or a pointer where the
LAME\n"
- " source can be obtained (such as www.mp3dev.org)\n"
- " An example of prominent notice would be an \"About the LAME
encoding engine\"\n"
- " button in some pull down menu within the executable of your
program.\n" "\n");
- fprintf(fp,
- "4. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a patent
license,\n"
- " you must obtain such license.\n" "\n" "\n");
- fprintf(fp,
- "*** IMPORTANT NOTE ***\n"
+ "This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,\n"
+ "but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of\n"
+ "MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU\n"
+ "Library General Public License for more details.\n"
"\n"
- "The decoding functions provided in LAME use the mpglib decoding
engine which\n"
- "is under the GPL. They may not be used by any program not
released under the\n"
- "GPL unless you obtain such permission from the MPG123 project
(www.mpg123.de).\n"
- "\n");
+ "You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General
Public\n"
+ "License along with this program. If not, see\n"
+ "<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.\n");
+
return 0;
}
> 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?
There's a long explanation of why it's now called "Lesser" instead of
"Library" GPL, a section 6b was added, and there were minor tweaks done to the
wording along with the naming/version changes.
> 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,
--
Regards,
Andres Mejia
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
