[Lame-dev] [PATCH] lame --license output change

[Andres Mejia]

2011/5/11 Rogério Brito <rbrito at ime.usp.br>:
> Hi, All.
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:50, robert <Robert.Hegemann at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Am 09.05.2011, 00:03 Uhr, schrieb <bouvigne at mp3-tech.org>:
>>
>>>  It seems that it was actually a mistake. I've been confused by the
>>>  "library" vs "lesser" naming, and did not noticed then that "lesser" was
>>>  only the v2.1 name.
>>
>> I see, thanks.
>>
>>>  I just intended to "correct" the naming (which was actually correct),
>>>  but not to change the license. (thus why I kept v2).
>>>  Changing the license version would have required approval of other Lame
>>>  devs, which is something I would not try to bypass.
>>
>> I'm sure all of our contributors are OK with LGPL 2.1, because as we say:
>>
>> "...either
>>  * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
>>
>>>  Short version of the answer:
>>>  Sorry, I was confused. Please consider the license as "Library GPL v2".
>>
>> Now we have some files "Lesser GPL 2.1" and most files "Library GPL 2.0",
>> namely gain_analysis.[ch] and the ACM stuff are LGPL 2.1.
>> Does that make any problems?
>
> It would be a good thing if we could upgrade things to LGPL 2.1.
> Perhaps people at Debian could help us with some license auditing here
> (perhaps the program licensecheck would be appropriate here). In the
> worst case, I can do that myself, even though I am quite short on time
> nowadays (moving home with my soon to be wife and doing a lot of
> paperwork).
>
>> We can't downgrade the LGPL 2.1 files, that's for sure.
>
> Sure.
>
>
> 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
>

LGPL 2.1 is a successor to LGPL 2 and the copyright headers state "(or
at your option) any later version", so yes you would be able to
distribute LAME under LGPL 2.1.

BTW, here is that patch again as you asked.

--- 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;
 }



-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia