lame_3.98.4-1_i386.changes REJECTED

[Fabian Greffrath]

Romain,

I am also sad about ftp-masters' decision, but I think I understand 
Torsten's argumentation.

Am 19.04.2011 12:58, schrieb Romain Beauxis:
> Let's take the example of ocaml-ssl.
> [...]
> This is obviously in contradiction. But the package got accepted nevertheless.
> Should we drop ocaml-ssl from Debian until we clarify the issue?

In the case of ocaml-ssl AFAIUI the overall license of the project is 
"LGPL plus even more rights", so if a single file claims it is 
licensed under plain LGPL it's not that tragic. There is no 
contradiction between the overall license and the one of the single file.

Lame, OTOH, has "LGPL but with further restrictions" as overall 
license so if a single file claims it is licensed under plain LGPL 
then that's contradictory.

I think it would be best to convince lame upstream to drop this silly 
additional clause and relicense the whole project under plain LGPL.

  - Fabian