[PATCH] lame --license output change

[Andres Mejia]

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> On 11-05-06 at 04:55pm, Andres Mejia wrote:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at 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".
>> >
>> > 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.
>
>> The copyright headers for the sources in LAME still say LGPL2.0. The
>> patch simply reflects this.
>
> I suspect you do not understand my point, then:
>
> LGPL2.0 == GNU Library General Public License version 2.0
>
> LGPL2.0 != GNU Lesser General Public License version 2
>
> You proposed the latter, which has 2 (two) flaws: a) "Lesser" instead of
> the correct "Library", and b) "2" instead of the correct "2.0".
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>

Check frontend/parse.c. You'll see the header mentions the *Lesser*
General Public License 2. The patch simply reflects that.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia