On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Andres Mejia <mcitadel@...> wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Mark Taylor <mt@...> wrote:
>> Hi Andres,
>> I'd be happy to just delete this text from the README.
>> Not sure if my sourceforge account will still work. It would be
>> quicker one of the other developers was willing to remove this text?
>> Hence I'm forwarding to lame-dev@....
> Ok. Thank you very much!
> Also, I'm going to assume I can remove this text from the README in
> the tarballs for any of the releases from LAME.
Before I rush to this, let me say that I hope nobody minds if I remove
this text from the tarball of LAME that will be redistributed
(hopefully) in Debian. Of course if anyone has objections, feel free
to raise them.
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:50 AM, <ceros7@...> wrote:
>>> I'm sorry to bother you. I'm sure you have already been
>>> contacted with regards to LAME and the modifications you
>>> made to its license over 10 years ago. There's a possibility
>>> that LAME can be redistributed alongside Debian (despite the
>>> patent issues with LAME) if a certain issue is resolved.
>>> This issue is with regards to the modifications you
>>> introduced in the README file. The modifications are
>>> repeated below.
>>> This code is distributed under the GNU LESSER PUBLIC LICENSE
>>> (LGPL, see http://www.gnu.org) with the following modification:
>>> 1. If you determine that distribution of LAME requires a
>>> patent license,
>>> and you obtain a patent license, you may distribute LAME
>>> even though
>>> redistribution of LAME may also require a patent license.
>>> 2. You agree not to enforce any patent claims for any aspect of
>>> MPEG audio compression, or any other techniques contained in
>>> the LAME source code.
>>> The issue is mainly with the second modification which
>>> contradicts the terms of the LGPL which states.
>>> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
>>> recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
>>> This contradiction makes LAME undistributable (see  and ).
>>> I have sent a message to the Free Software Foundation and
>>> the Software Freedom Law Center in regards to this issue
>>> (see ). So far I haven't received a response from either
>>> of them. I have received a response from one of the current
>>> LAME developers however (I had CC'd the lame-dev mailing
>>> list). Since the time these extra restrictions were
>>> introduced, no other file was updated to add these
>>> restrictions. Thus there is confusion as to whether LAME is
>>> still licensed solely under LGPL or if these modifications
>>> to the LGPL which are stated in the README file also apply.
>>> The current LAME developers would like to remove those extra
>>> restrictions if they knew for sure that those restrictions
>>> only applied to the README or at least any file that doesn't
>>> contain any licensing information.
>>> Since you were the only person to introduce these changes,
>>> this is why I am sending you this lengthy message via
>>> sourceforge.net's messaging system. If you agree to have
>>> these modifications to the LGPL dropped for LAME, could you
>>> send a message to the current LAME developers allowing them
>>> to drop the modifications? You could also send me a message
>>> and I will route the message to them (I am not a LAME
>>> Andres Mejia
>>> Email: mcitadel@...
>>> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/08/msg00049.html
>>> This message has been sent to you, a registered SourceForge.net user,
>>> by another site user, through the SourceForge.net site. This message
>>> has been delivered to your SourceForge.net mail alias. You may reply
>>> to this message using the "Reply" feature of your email client, or
>>> using the messaging facility of SourceForge.net at:
> Again, thank you very much. :-)
> Andres Mejia