[Lame-dev] Accepting packages into Debian (was: Re: Reissue: vo-aacenc_0.1.0~rc1-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED into unstable)

[Andres Mejia]

On Wednesday 01 June 2011 2:54:50 PM Rogério Brito wrote:
> Hi there.
> 
> On Jun 01 2011, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > Our previous discussion at least led to the rejection of the lame
> > package for comprehensible reasons which have been forwarded to
> > upstream and mostly resolved in the mean time. So, every kind of
> > reaction might lead to productivity. ;)
> 
> Just for the record, if there are issues with the acceptance of lame in
> Debian, I would like to know (and I'm CC'ing the other members of the lame
> team).
> 
> I will be on a long trip starting on this Friday, but if the plane doesn't
> crash :-), I will try to see whatever we can do, so that we don't have
> problems with the distributions.
> 
> And way may, in the not-so-distant future, have a new release of lame.
> 
> 
> Regards,

BTW, did you ever get a chance to review and commit this patch?

--- a/frontend/parse.c
+++ b/frontend/parse.c
@@ -395,33 +395,24 @@ static int
 print_license(FILE * const fp)
 {                       /* print version & license */
     lame_version_print(fp);
+            "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,
-            "Can I use LAME in my commercial program?\n"
+            "This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or\n"
+            "modify it under the terms of the GNU Library 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");
+            "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"
+            "You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public\n"
+            "License along with this program. If not, see\n"
+            "<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.\n");
     return 0;
 }
 

Note the single space at the end of the patch.

Also, something I noticed some time ago, lame has a COPYING and a LICENSE file.
The COPYING file contains the license, but the LICENSE file contains some things
that look like it should go in the README file instead. Also, It would help
make things less confusing if the LICENSE file contents were moved to the
README and the LICENSE file be removed.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia