Re: License conditions for a specific file in praat

Hi,

Thank you all for your insightful comments on this thread [1].

I am cc'ing this reply to the maintainers of the lame package. I just 
noticed that an fft.c file identical to Praat's one is also included in 
the lame source package [2]. Unlike what is done in the Praat package, an 
entry for that file is included in the lame's debian/copyright file [3] 
in the following stanza:

     Files: libmp3lame/fft.c
     Copyright: © 1988-1993, Ron Mayer
                © 1999-2000, Takehiro Tominaga
     License: GPL-1+
     Comment:
      No version of the GPL is explicitly given.

If I understand from the discussion in this thread correctly, the above 
is not enough. Is that correct?

Best,

Rafael

  [1] https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[email protected]
  [2] https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/lame/-/blob/master/libmp3lame/fft.c?ref_type=heads
  [3] https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/lame/-/blob/master/debian/control?ref_type=heads

* Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> [2026-03-17 11:48]:

> On Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:37:03 AM Mountain Standard Time Michael Stehmann 
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> you are right, the patents might be obsolete. I haven’t looked into this 
>> in any depth. That would also involve a considerable amount of work.
>>
>> But the left over text is not really a license.
>>
>> So the author might put his work under a free software license now 
>> (one or more of more than 150 or a new one).
>>
>> Until he will do it, there is a legal uncertainty.
>>
>> Kind regards 
>> Michael
>
> I agree.  The best way forward would be to contact the author and see if he will explicitly 
> release his work under a DFSG-free license.
>
> That doesn’t resolve any potential patent questions, but it would resolve the licensing 
> question.  Debian and the free software movement in general tends to ignore *potential* 
> patent problems because every piece of software could potentially be claimed to exist 
> under one of the very liberal patents that has been granted, and only worry about patents 
> when the a patent holder makes a *claim* that is substantiated in court.  Partially this is 
> because, even when there is a claim, a large number of them do not end up being 
> substantiated under scrutiny.
>
> -- 
> Soren Stoutner
> [email protected]