[pulseaudio-discuss] Change the qpaeq license from AGPL to LGPL?
nevion at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 03:27:03 UTC 2016
Hi Tanu - this is perfectly acceptable.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote:
> Hi all,
> A bug was recently filed about the top-level LICENSE file not
> mentioning the AGPL licensing of qpaeq:
> I was surprised to find out that qpaeq is licensed under AGPL. While we
> could simply fix the top-level LICENSE file, I would prefer to change
> the qpaeq license to LGPL v2.1 instead to be in line with the rest of
> the PulseAudio code. I don't have anything against AGPL as such, but I
> am against complicating the licensing terms of PulseAudio for no good
> In order to be able to change the license, we need an explicit
> permission to do so from everyone who holds copyright to any part of
> the code of qpaeq. Below is a list of every qpaeq contributor. I'm not
> sure every small change is copyrightable, but I don't want to ignore
> anyone's contribution at this point. If we don't get the permission
> from everyone, we can at that point discuss if we can change the
> license anyway.
> The contributors:
> Jason Newton
> added qpaeq script for GUI equalizer control to src/util
> remove .py extension from qpaeq
> src/utils/qpaeq: added more friendly error messages to common errors
> Maarten Bosmans
> qpaeq: Make it python3 and python2 compatible
> Arun Raghavan
> utils: Typo fixes in qpaeq
> Matěj Laitl
> qpaeq: Try to load equalizer module before failing, better error messages
> Aidan Gauland
> qpaeq: Don't set font-size on widgets
> If you're one of the listed contributors, please reply to this mail,
> stating whether you give permission to change the license of the code
> you wrote to LGPL v2.1.
> Of course, if anyone (contributor or not) thinks relicensing is a bad
> idea, speak up. We can always just add a note about AGPL to the top-
> level LICENSE.
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss