lame_3.98.4-1_i386.changes REJECTED

[Romain Beauxis]

2011/4/19 Torsten Werner <twerner at debian.org>:
> Am 19.04.2011 21:42, schrieb Romain Beauxis:
>> I do not think that it is the package maintainer's duty to check with
>> all copyright holders that they agree with the license of an upstream
>> package.
>
> Yes it is the maintainer's duty if the package obviously contradicts itself.

Let's take the example of ocaml-ssl.

The license of the package is LGPL with the following addition:
"As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you
may also link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library"
with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an
executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute
that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General
Public License.  By "a publicly distributed version of the Library",
we mean either the unmodified Library, or a
modified version of the Library that is distributed under the
conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public
License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons
why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General
Public License."

However, the file ssl_stubs.c only has the following license header:
" * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
 * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
 * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
 * Lesser General Public License for more details.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
 * License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
 * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA"

This is obviously in contradiction. But the package got accepted nevertheless.

Should we drop ocaml-ssl from Debian until we clarify the issue?

Romain