Guus Sliepen wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:18:00PM +0200, Loïc Martin wrote:
License is GPL2+, except for 2 files (src/dct/{fdct.c,idct.c} ) which are
GPL2+, but with the additionnal note:
Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
software (or portions thereof) for any purpose, without fee, subject to these
conditions:
(1) If any part of the source code for this software is distributed, then
this
README file must be included, with this copyright and no-warranty notice
unaltered; and any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files
must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation.
(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying
documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of
the Independent JPEG Group".
(3) Permission for use of this software is granted only if the user accepts
full responsibility for any undesirable consequences; the authors accept
NO LIABILITY for damages of any kind.
How is that compatible with the rest of the code? Clearly the whole library
would not be GPL2+ if there are additional restrictions.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses,
where the "Independent JPEG Group License" is listed:
Independent JPEG Group License
This is a free software license, and compatible with the GNU GPL. The
authors have assured us that developers who document changes as
> required by the GPL will also comply with the similar requirement in
> this license.
I'd like why it would make the whole library not GPL2+ - not that Debian
will ship the binaries of course, but I guess a lot of projects and
manufacturers might need to know that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org